The Rising Storm

This a paper I wrote my senior year of high school. Yes, it is long (10 pages double spaced), but worth the read. I've included my sources at the bottom. This paper is strictly educational, as it doesn't precisely take one side or the other. My personal position, however, is pro-life.

The year is 1965. Norma McCorvey – a divorced, poor, and single parent from Texas – struggles to support herself and her daughter with her job as a waitress. Ms. McCorvey is pregnant but feels that she cannot support another child. She wants to have an abortion but her doctor informs her that a woman can have an abortion in Texas only if her life is in danger, and her life is not. Ms. McCorvey is unable to have a legal abortion performed in Texas, cannot afford to go to California where abortions are legal, and does not have the money to pay for an illegal abortion anywhere. Trying to somehow overcome the state law, Ms. McCorvey, bitter and depressed, decides to lie about her situation. She makes up a story about being raped by four people, but finds that she cannot evade the law. Although she has the option of keeping her baby, she decides in the best interest of herself, her daughter, and the future baby, to place the baby for adoption. Her lawyer persuades her to take her case to court to challenge the Texas statute that denied her the right to have a legal abortion. The case, Roe v. Wade, eventually reaches the Supreme Court and, along with another case, Doe v. Bolton, ultimately leads to the landmark decision to nationally legalize abortion (Terkel 13-16). Since the legalization of abortion in 1973, its legality has become one of the most controversial issues in the United States. The opponents of abortion argue in the interest of the fetus, while the other side, supporters of abortion rights, fights in the interest of the woman (Toner 1). An all-out concession by either side of the debate seems unlikely, so the only probable solution to the abortion issue would be a compromise involving limits to abortion, better distribution of information, and more alternatives available to women.

            The issue of abortion dates back to the fourth century B.C., when Aristotle advised “abortion for parents with too many children” (Day 15).  Some of the earliest medical texts include references to abortion. Hippocrates (c. 460-c.377 B.C.), a Greek physician often called the father of medicine, shared his recipes for abortifacients (agents for causing abortion) in his book, Diseases of Women (Day 15). Galen (c.130-c.200 A.D.), a physician who wrote many medical texts, described a number of abortifacients in his manuscripts.  Even entire civilizations had their own ‘recipes.’ Ancient Egyptians made their abortifacients from dung, resin, juniper, leeks, Egyptian salts, and celery seed (Day 16).

            Although abortion had existed for many centuries before hand, opposition was never documented until the advent of Christianity. During the thirteenth century A.D., the philosopher and Catholic theologian Thomas Aquinas wrote that life begins when the soul enters the body (Day 16). Aquinas felt that it was not a mortal sin to abort the fetus before its soul had entered the body because life did not begin until one had a soul (Day 17). He defined that occurrence as forty days after conception for male fetuses, and eighty days after for females (Day 16). Aquinas’ standards were adopted by the Catholic Church, and remained in use for centuries. In later years, quickening – when the mother first feels the baby move – became the definition for the time when the soul entered the body (Day 17).

            During the early colony days of the United States, abortion laws followed the English Common Law. Under the English Common Law, abortion was forbidden. An abortion performed prior to quickening was a misdemeanor, while one performed after that event qualified as a felony. In the early 1800s, the definition for when life began changed when it was discovered that life began at fertilization, not when she “felt life.” Throughout the mid-nineteenth century, each present-day state passed their individual laws concerning abortion. By 1860, eighty-five percent of the population lived in a state that had passed new laws prohibiting abortion (Willke 1). The effects of abortion could be seen in the number of children a woman had. In the 1800s, the average American woman had given birth to seven children, but by 1900 that number had dropped to three and a half. Some people estimated the abortion rate had been between one fifth and one third of all pregnancies (Day 18).

As the years progressed, the reasons women wanted an abortion changed. During the mid 1800s, motives for having an abortion included health concerns, financial pressures, and covering up the scandal having had sex outside of marriage. Medical doctors and unlicensed abortionists with varying skills used the same methods: poisons or inserting sharp objects into the uterus (Day 17).In the 1930s, poverty was an accepted reason, and by the 1940s and 1950s, some doctors even accepted psychiatric reasons (Day 21). The “acceptable” reasons for having an abortion continued to expand, including mother’s health, fetal abnormalities, and rape and incest, in addition to the list of preexisting motivations (Day 34-37).

Even though abortion had existed for centuries beforehand, public objection did not come into play until the mid 1800s.  In 1838, Charles and Anna Lohman, assuming the names Dr. Mauriceau and Madame Restell, advertised their abortion services in the New York Herald. Their efforts were successful, and they opened branch offices in other cities. Other people followed their example, and the performing of abortions became a business (Day 18). In the following decades up to the mid 1900s, concerns over the risks of abortions performed by unlicensed practitioners led to the passing of United States laws to regulate abortion. The American Medical Association (AMA) was able to get restrictions placed on abortion by the mid 1900s (Day 18). In the second half of the twentieth century, the AMA joined forces with the Church in a campaign against abortion (Day 19). Other organizations emerged on the scene, taking either one side as abortion supporters, or the other side as anti-abortion advocates. In 1921 Margaret Sanger, a nurse in the New York ghetto, founded the American Birth Control League, which later became the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, pushed for giving a woman her rights (Day 21). The American Law Institute (ALI) suggested a standard abortion code in 1959. Those guidelines allowed abortion when a pregnancy “would gravely impair the physical or mental health of the mother,” when the child was likely to be born with “grave physical and mental defects,” and when rape or incest was involved. The abortion would also have to be approved by two doctors (Day 23). The National Organization for Women (NOW) included the right to control their reproductive lives, and gained support from many Protestant Churches (Day 23).

In 1973, a national ruling was made by the Supreme Court. In Roe V. Wade, the Supreme Court ruled that states could not interfere with the physician-patient decision during the first trimester. Intervention was allowed during the second trimester only to ensure safe medical practices that were related to the mother’s health. During the third trimester, however, states could regulate or prohibit abortion unless the procedure was necessary to protect the life or health of the woman (Day 24).

Two decidedly different sides to the abortion issue have emerged over the past few centuries. Individuals and groups usually take one side or another; they either support abortion, or they oppose abortion. Those who believe that abortion should stay legal are often categorized under the caption pro-choice. Those who classify themselves as against abortion generally put themselves under the caption pro-life. The varying issues that these two groups are at odds about include the morality of abortion, the restriction of abortion rights, as well as other diverse topics.

Those people who can be described as pro-choice believe that abortion should stay as an available choice for women who want one performed. Many people who group themselves on this side of the issue believe that abortion is not immoral. At the moment of conception, a sperm and ovum join to create one cell. To say that one cell is already a full human being, they say, is illogical. Whether the result of procreation is labeled a zygote, blastocyte, embryo, or fetus, because it does not have all the attributes of a human being, it cannot be considered one (Morgentaler 1). Since the object of discussion is not a human being, it cannot be considered murder when an abortion takes place.

A main issue among the pro-choice community pertains to the woman’s choice and right to have an abortion. They debate and argue that no one can tell a woman what to do or not do with their bodies. A pregnancy involves many responsibilities, inconveniences, limitations, and even dangers. Women who eagerly await the birth of that wanted child see that as a small price to pay; however, for those women who have no dependable partner, are too poor, are too young for the responsibility of caring for a child, or emotionally and physically unprepared to become mothers, being forced to continue an unwanted pregnancy can be devastating (Day 92-93). Other people say that if the mother’s life is threatened, she was the victim of rape or incest, or the fetus is grossly deformed, then that woman should be able to have an abortion if she wishes. Stephanie Foster, vice president of government affairs for Planned Parenthood, stated, “We want to support people in all types of decisions they make (Osborne 1-2).” Many pro-choice proponents have voiced their opinion that an unwanted child should not be brought into the world (Day 81).

The pro-choice community upholds their outlook on abortion that keeping abortion legal and available to women is in the best interest of the United States community as a whole. The pro-choice philosophy maintains that:

…the availability of good medical abortions protects the health and fertility of women and allows children to be born into homes where they can receive love, care, affection, and respect for their unique individuality, so that these children will grow up to be joyful, loving, caring, responsible members of the community, able to enter into meaningful relationships.

Thus, reproductive freedom – access to legal abortions, to contraception, and, by extension, to sexual education – protects women and couples and is probably the most important aspect of preventive medicine and psychiatry, as well as the most promising preventative of crime and mental illness in our society (Morgentaler 3). 

This philosophy is supported by a number of different statistics. Wherever the legislation of abortion has been liberalized, the effects on public health have been positive. A steady decline in complications and mortality associated with medical abortions, a decline in mortality due to childbirth, a drop in newborn and infant mortality, an overall decline in premature births, and a drop in the number of births of unwanted children are all evidence of the effectiveness in the following of the philosophy (Morgentaler 3).

On the opposite side of the spectrum regarding the abortion topic, many people and groups see abortion as an unnecessary evil that needs to be done away with. Many issues brought up by pro-choice icons have counters brought forward from people who feel strongly for the pro-life side of the issue. The main idea they accept and fight for shows abortion as the murder of a human being. Those people who fight to make abortion illegal feel the issue is a matter of life and death for millions of innocent children (Day 77). John Jansen, co-director of Generations for Life, said, “Just as I believe no one has the right to kill an innocent human being who is already born, I also believe no one has the right to kill an innocent human being who is not yet born (Jansen).” Pro-lifers argue that it is not a choice, but a child.  By speaking of the fetus as a “choice,” the pro-choice activists are dehumanizing and depersonalizing unborn children (Day 80). Sidney Callahan, a pro-life feminist, says that “the fetus is an immature dependent form of human life which only needs time and protection to develop. Surely, immaturity and dependence are not crimes (Day 81).” While pro-choice supporters feel that abortion should be a choice made available to women, one decidedly pro-choice website demonstrates an entirely different opinion. An article on abort73.com states, “Abortion isn’t about choice, it’s about the systematic slaughter of innocent human beings (Photographic 1).”

One very controversial issue involves the definition of when human life begins. Pro-lifers contend that life begins at conception, and surprising as it may appear to many people, the medical community agrees with that contention. Dr. Jerome LeJeune, Professor of Genetics at University of Descartes, voiced his opinion based on medical testimony, "After fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being. [It] is no longer a matter of taste or opinion...it is plain experimental evidence. Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception (Medical 1)." Various other reputable persons also lent their voices in conveying the medical truth. Dr. Alfred M. Bongioanni, Professor of Pediatrics and Obstetrics at University of Pennsylvania, said,” I have learned from my earliest medical education that human life begins at the time of conception (Medical 1)." In 1981, a United States Senate judiciary subcommittee received those two testimonies, among with many others from a variety of medical experts. The official Senate report came to the following conclusion:

Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being - a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings (Medical 1).

In addition to the argument over the personhood of the unborn, abortion also violates the fetus’s interests (Kaplan 27). Just because the unborn child does not have the same human capabilities as a newborn does not mean that it does not have interests. If the criteria for personhood lied in the ability to exercise abilities, then someone in a reversible coma would not have any interest (Kaplan 29). While the person in a coma cannot exercise his or her abilities at that present moment, that person still has interest because of the potentiality to use them. The fetus also has a potential to use human capabilities (Kaplan 29). Morton Kaplan wrote in one of his articles, “Like the fetus …the individual in a reversible coma…clearly has interests (Kaplan 29).”

            Abortion has been legal in the United States ever since that fateful day in 1973. Every year in the United States, roughly 1.3 million abortions are performed. That burns down to more than 3,500 abortions being performed every single day and approximately one abortion every twenty seconds (Voice 1). Approximately forty-six million abortions are performed each year worldwide, which accounts for about 126,000 abortions daily. About twenty thousand of those annual abortions are obtained in countries where either abortion is restricted or prohibited (Abortion 1). In one clinic in Dallas/Ft. Worth, Texas during the late 1970s, it was $185 to $1,250 for a second or third trimester abortion. “Twelve weeks and under was $185 and 13 to 14 weeks was $250, and 14 to 15 weeks was $375. The $1,250 was the top of the line - general anesthesia, second or third trimester abortion. Abortions can be performed with oral medication or, if you have the money, with general anesthesia (Everett 1).”

            With so many abortions being performed every day, and the price tag attached to an abortion, the people who truly profit are those who run the abortion clinics. Carol Everett of Greater Dallas Right to Life and former worker for an abortion clinic, said, “I watched my employer's income go from $25,000 to $125,000 a year in two clinics… Most of the clinics are run in chains because it is so profitable. Where else can someone like me make $150,000, much less a quarter of a million a year (Everett 1)?” Deception in that Dallas clinic can quite easily be seen in what Everett says:

In the clinics I was involved with, we didn't do any real counseling. We answered only the questions the woman asked …We did not discuss any alternatives to abortion unless the woman forced us to…The counselor does try to determine the reason this woman wants the abortion. Not so much to help as to use fear to reinforce the abortion decision… We told them it [follow-up counseling] would be available, however, we used some techniques in the recovery room to discourage further contact except for future abortions…a 13-year-old girl came in for a two-week check-up. The check-up is not as much to check them, as it is to be sure you didn't miss a pregnancy. She didn't come out of the room for a long period of time. She was slitting her wrists (Everett 1).

With the number of abortion clinics in the world, let alone in the United States, it is not hard for one to imagine that this type of thing might occur on a daily basis, nationwide, and worldwide.

            Abortion could be completely banned and outlawed in the United States. This would of course make many pro-lifers happy; however, there would be bad side affects as well. If this were to happen, there would of course be the people who would seek to have abortions illegally. The mortality rate from these procedures could increase because of the unavailability of safe and sterile environments in which the abortions could take place. Uproars from pro-choice groups would surge because of the new law repealing Roe v. Wade. An increase in live births could mean more children growing up in bad homes and higher crime levels. It could also mean more babies available to people wishing to adopt. With abortion banned, people could see a reason to be more careful and use protection with their easy escape not as readily available.

With all the uproar over abortion, it is sometimes hard to see any type of resolution to the conflict. Hillary Clinton, a faithful supporter of abortion rights, previously spoke about working with the pro-life movement to realize a mutual goal of fewer abortions (Gragnani 2).With little else foreseeable, the only likely solution to the myriad of combat over abortion would be a compromise somewhere in the middle ground between the two sides of the issue. Susan E. Wills, Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities, says:

Solutions to the abortion issue were being worked out at the state level -- political compromises that would allow for abortions in some circumstances which the great majority of citizens in each state would agree to -- for example, abortions when the life of the mother was at risk or in cases of rape and incest. That whole democratic process of compromise came to a screeching halt when the Supreme Court issued its ruling in Roe, effectively taking the issue out of the hands of citizens through their elected representatives and usurping that power for themselves (Wills).

With abortion becoming a sizable issue in politics, much debate has occurred concerning the topic. Francis Pauc of St. Stephen’s Parish says, “…the Green Party wants to provide enough alternatives to women so that abortion no longer becomes an attractive option for women – safe, legal, and rare, with an emphasis on rare (Gragnani 2).” Bill Clinton, while running for his first term as president, said he wanted to make abortions “safe, legal, and rare (Gragnani 2).” Compromise would keep both sides relatively happy.

The abortion debate in America can be seen as a rising storm. A solution to the dispute will eventually have to be reached. Even though either side may seem more agreeable to any individual person, neither side would be willing to just give up on their cause, leading back to the only plausible solution of a compromise somewhere between the pro-choice and pro-life principles.

Works Cited

“Abortion Facts.” 7 Nov. 2007. www.abortionno.org/resources/fastfacts.html.

“A Voice for the Unborn.” 7 Nov. 2007. http://www.voiceforunborn.com/.

Day, Nancy. Abortion: Debating the Issue. USA: Enslow Publishers, Inc. 1995.

Everett, Carol. “What I Saw in the Abortion Industry.” 7 Nov. 2007. http://incolor.inetnebr.com/stuart/whatisaw.htm.

Gragnani, Vincent. “A little less confrontational, a little more action: after more than 30 years of stalemate, some on both sides of the abortion debate are ready to put down their signs and start trying to work together.” U.S. Catholic. Sep. 2006: 12(6). Infotrac. Herscher High School Library, Herscher, IL 6 Nov. 2007. http://infotrac/galegroup/com.itweb.herscherhs.

Jansen, John. Co-director, Generations for Life. Email Address john@prolifeaction.org. Email Interview. 12 Oct. 2007.

Kaplan, Morton A. “Abortion Violates the Fetus’s Interests.” The Abortion Controversy. Ed. Bruno Leone. San Diego, CA: Greenhaven Press, Inc., 1995. 27-32.

“Medical Testimony.” 5 Nov. 2007. http://www.abort73.com/HTML/I-A-1-medical.html.

 Morgentaler, Henry. “Abortion is a Moral Choice.” At Issue: The Ethics of Abortion. San Diego: Greenhaven Press. 2001. Infotrac. Herscher High School Library, Herscher, IL 22 Oct. 2007. http://infotrac/galegroup/com.itweb.herscherhs.

 Osborne, Eric. “Life Support. (ABORTION POLITICS).” The Christian Century. 26 June 2007: 8(3). Infotrac. Herscher High School Library, Herscher, IL 6 Nov. 2007. http://infotrac/galegroup/com.itweb.herscherhs.

 “Photographic Evidence.” 5 Nov. 2007. http://www.abort73.com/HTML/I-A-4-warning.html.

Terkel, Susan Neilburg. Abortion: Facing the Issues. USA: Moffa Press, INC. 1988.

Toner, Robin. “Abortion Foes See Validation for New Tactic.” New York Times. 22 May 2007. 26 Sep. 2007 http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/22/washington/22abortion.html.

Wills, Susan E., Esq. Associate Director for Education, Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities, U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. Email Address swills@usccb.org. Email Interview. 20 Oct. 2007.

Willke, Dr. and Mrs. J. C. Why Can’t We Love Them Both. 7 Nov. 2007. http://www.abortionfacts.com/online_books/love_them_both/why_cant_we_love_them_both_7.asp.