Image provided by: University of Nebraska-Lincoln Libraries, Lincoln, NE
About The daily Nebraskan. ([Lincoln, Neb.) 1901-current | View Entire Issue (Feb. 13, 1989)
Medical, moral issues explode in columns Editor’s Note: Some people say it is more than likely the U.S. Supreme Court soon will reverse its controversial 1973 decision in Roe vs. Wade that legalized abortion in the United States. The abortion issue has been a political and social fireball ever since the process was developed. The Daily Nebras kan editorial board, in the second install ment of “PRO/CON,” has solicited opinion on the validity of abortion. The editorial board is eager to hear reader opinion on this and any issue. Some 16 years ago, in 1973, the Supreme Court of the United Stales made one of the most infamous and shameful deci sions in world history - the unconstitutional decree in Roc vs. Wade. The Roe vs. Wade case legalized abortion on demand throughout the nine months ol pregnancy. Under this illegitimate judicial proclamation, more than 22 million unborn human beings have been put to death. To pul this American Holocaust in perspective, each month 131,5(X) babies arc aborted in America: That is 4,384 each day; 183 each hour; three every minute; and one every 20 seconds. I o cc ft* Just think about that for a second — in the time that has passed'since you began reading this guest opinion, Somewhere in America an unborn human being has been put to death. That number, 22 million, boggles the mind. Il seems beyond belief that any society could be so cruel, so insensitive to human life. But il history has taught us anything, it is that man kind has an almost unlimited capacity to turn its back on any class of people that gets in the way of prevailing cultural notions. The slaves in America werc-denicd human ity to preserve the lifestyle of the Southern plantation. European Jews were extinguished because they got in the way of Adolf Hitler’s notion of a superior race. Political dissidents are persecuted in the Soviet Union, China and Cuba because they get in the way of Marxist ideology. And unborn babies are pul to death in modem America because their very existence interferes with the sexual revolution and the feminist movement. What do you suppose will be written about our society in future history books? Will his tory judge us as a progressive society with a sensitive concern for the rights of young women? Or will it judge us as an evil society blinded - by selfish material concerns — to the slaughter of helpless, innocent human beings? It is time that we leam from our past mis takes. The sexual revolution did not bring us “free love.” Il brought us millions of illcgili mate births, countless broken homes, 22 mil lion abortions, more than 20 million cases of incurable genital herpes and the AIDS epi demic. As George Gilder has wisely observed, our society is committing sexual suicide. And abortion did not liberate women. It victimizes and brutalizes women. Abortion does not prevent a pregnant woman from be coming a mother. Either way, she is a mother. Abortion merely makes her the mother of a dead baby. Our society has made it too hard for good people to do what is righ t, and too easy for good people to do what is wrong. We must change our laws and, what is even more important, restore common sense and common decency to our culture. The Supreme Court can change the law this year by reversing Roc vs. Wade, but our culture will change only if we as a people decide to make a change of mind and a change of heart. Edmond Burke once observed: “All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.” In other words, each one of us has a job to do. Let’s begin by giving serious thought to the moral and cultural collapse in America, and by resolving to devote our time, our energy and our intellects to rebuilding the ethical foundation of our society. Proponents of abortion on demand argue thal“personhood” is a philosophical and theo logical question, one upon which reasonable persons disagree. This view ol human life disregards indisput able scientific evidence demonstrating that a genetically distinct, living human being exists from the moment of conception. Regardless, even granting the argument, it does not follow that abortion should be left to the private choice of individual mothers. Rather, all rea sonable doubts should be resolved in favor ol protecting the unborn child, because for him or her (yes, the fetus has gender from the moment of conception) abortion is, quite literally, a matter of life or death. Yes, women denied access to abortions have a claim on society, a claim for compas sionate support in making the best of a difficult situation. But all doubts about human life must be resolved in favor of life. We wish to close by asking you to think about abortion in a particular way. Suppose you were on a high cloud looking down on an unmarried pregnant woman and her unborn child. Suppose further you were informed that you could decide whether abortion was to be legal or illegal. Finally, suppose you were told that after deciding the legal rule you would be required to change places with cither the mother or the child (as determined by the flip of a coin). Which rule would you choose concerning abortion? Richard Duncan is a professor of law at the L'NL College of Law and a member of Nebraska Coalition for Life. Julie Lostroh is public information coordinator for the coalition. Deciding to terminate a pregnancy, Whether it be in its first week or its 14th week, is more than a toss of a coin. It’s not a decision most w omen make with out serious thought, nor one that can quickly be packed away in a box of old photographs and musty letters. An abortion is not like pulling a splinter from a finger. Medically, it is the most simple procedure a surgeon can perform. Surgeon General C. Everett Koop recently announced in a study of women who terminated their pregnancies that he could not determine that abortion causes any physical, medical, emotional or psycho logical damage to the patient. Abortions are rarely performed because a bouncing baby would simply be too m uch of an inconvenience. Motherhood (or parenthood) is far more than a mere inconvenience. To suggest that abortions arc performed for the sake of incon venience belittles the nature of parental re sponsibility. Forasmuch joy andlovcasachildcan bring into a world which welcomes it, parents of an unwanted child can abuse it, neglect it and w r afiO cuffi _ w somelimes murder it, as atrocious as that fact may be. A Czechoslovakian study of children whose mothers initially considered abortion showed that those children, now age 20, have greater instances of criminal records, learning defi ciencies in school, higher school drop-out rates and are less likely to seek a higher education. Of course, the argument can be made that those women should never have gotten preg nant in the first place. But in a country where birth control is not always available, options are limited. And no birth control method, save abstinence, is 100-pcrccnt foolproof. Being a parent means being responsible not only for one’s self, but for the well-being of another human being. It takes commitment, maturity, economic stability and a great deal of physical energy. I will not argue with anti-choice proponents that abortion as a means of birth control is 'atrocious. It is. I will not argue that life of some sort has been created when a sperm and an egg manifest themselves. I can not sincerely argue that a five-week-old embryo is only a bunch of cells, although facts show that chickens and other animals are similar to humans in appearance at those stages of development. But science has determined that a human fetus’ brain structures and nerve-cell connec tions, which characterize the thinking and feel ing parts of the brain, are not completed until between the seventh and eighth months of gestation. Only after 30 weeks do the brain waves show patterns of w aking consciousness when pain can be perceived. The reflex actions that arc present before this stage do not indicate ability to feel pain. This suggests that person hood does not begin until this stage. For every argument against abortions on demand, I w'ill argue that this is my body and I am the sole proprietor of it. Governments do not regulate the bodily actions of men. Women and their physical entities, in spite of their physical potential for motherhood, should not be regulated by the powers that be. To even suggest a reversal of Roe vs. Wade is a frightening and repressive thought. It is a violation of my right to privacy and my right to determine my own destiny. The law currently states that U.S. citizens should be free of government interference, specifically “the right to be free from unwar ranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affccung a person as the deci sion whether to bear or beget a child.” But if Roe vs. Wade should be overturned, the walls which surround the rights of privacy will be shattered. It was only in 1965 in Griswold vs. Connecticut that birth control use between married couples was permitted. To force those same people, despite their use of birth control, to carry a pregnancy to term would be a violation of their personal rights of choice. The government does not tell me what ca reer I should choose: it should not tell me what parcnial paths I should walk. Should Roc vs. Wade be reversed and should stales begin to regulate abortions, it is not the wealthy, white woman who will suffer; a scat on a flight to Europe or to a neighboring state is always available for them. Who it will discriminate against are the young, the poor and minorities. Currently Medicaid is available for abor tions for low-income qualified clients. If that funding were discontinued and childbirth was forced, the welfare system would only be per petuated with the burden of those new mothers and their new babies. Daily advertisements for adoption are seen in the Daily Nebraskan. But as unfortunate as the situation of childless couples is, about 94 percent of unwed mothers decide to keep their babies. It is not abortion which is to be blamed for the lack of adoptablc babies. J he argument tor and against abortion can rage forever. Neither side of the issue w ill rest whether Roe vs. Wade continues to stand or if it is overturned. But the argument that every U.S. citizen has the right to regulate their own bodies and to have control over their individual choices should stand. Freedom is what this country was established on and an individual’s freedom should be a forthright determining factor here. No matter what one’s opinion of abortion may be, the decision should continue to be an individual’s. Johnson Is a news-editorial major, a Daily Nebras kan editorial columnist and wire page editor. I