We’ve just passed the 40th anniversary of the landmark Supreme Court decision, Roe v. Wade. As is typical with “anniversaries”, Americans seize the opportunity to voice their opinions. You don’t have to go far to read a rant arguing that one side is remarkably intelligent while the other is sadly misinformed. Both sides present seemingly logical and “common sense” arguments (some backed up by statistics, others backed up by experience, circumstances, or feelings). 

The constant political and ethical debates about abortion make little to no impact on people. The reason is that the basic difference between  pro-life and pro-choice is presuppositional and not political, circumstantial or experiential. 

In a recent column, Nora Ibrahim presented many different angles of the  pro-choice mindset, including women’s rights, the advancement of medicine and science, the “medical jurisdiction” that abortion falls under (as opposed to the religious or ethical) and the perception of women as “containers for the child.” I believe that she is fairly typical of the  pro-choice mindset.

In comparison, pro-life organizations argue their points from almost the exact same angles. The differences exist in how each argument is interpreted. For example, the National Right to Life Committee argues that “Roe is a sad commentary on our society’s attitudes toward women and their unborn children. Instead of helping and empowering mothers, our society funnels them to the nearest abortion clinic.” What we see here is an argument about women’s rights and perceptions, just with a different interpretation.

I don’t buy any of it. We are arguing over the branches of the tree when we should be focusing on the roots.

It’s not about women’s rights or the perception of women — anyone, whether they are  pro-life or pro-choice, is in favor of women’s rights. The truth is that both sides have deep compassion for women and their physiology. This directly affects perception; no one would actually argue that women are simply “containers for the child.”

It’s not about advancement of medicine or science — abortions have been performed for thousands of years. History tells us that abortions have been common (albeit typically criminal and punishable by death). There is nothing new under the sun. We’ve just developed new, less painful ways of doing it.

It’s not about a court case — to say that a decision by the Supreme Court should be the focus of the issue would be, at best, insufficient. Pro-choicers accuse pro-lifers of relying on God and ethics; yet pro-choicers seem to focus on Roe v. Wade, which is, in effect, quite ethical. The difference is that it portrays the ethics of a human court vs. a “Higher” court. Religion and ethics can certainly make a huge impact, but the point is that everyone must make an individual decision regardless of what someone else says.

Instead, consider the fact that it is all about a fundamental question: What is the value of an unborn child (or fetus)? The answer to that question directly impacts how anyone feels about the abortion issue. The value placed on the unborn is the reason why the constant debates will never solve anything. Because people don’t agree on that question, they will not agree on any of the details.

So, consider your stance on the issue. If you ask yourself the question, “What is the value of the unborn?” you will most likely be able to put the answer into every way that you approach the abortion issue. For pro-lifers, the infinite value of the child makes abortion systematic murder. For  pro-choicers, the lack of value that the unborn possesses renders it to be nothing more than a collection of cell and tissues, and, therefore, expendable.

Everything that each side believes comes down to that question: What is the value of an unborn life? This is why, no matter how many statistics I throw out about the dangers and ethical disasters of abortion, it will have no impact on  pro-choicers. In comparison, the arguments about women’s rights, the advancement of medicine, access to health care, a Supreme Court decision and the freedom to choose” will never convince a pro-lifer.

My two cents on the matter can be summed up by one request. Assume the presupposition that the unborn child is, in fact, a child and has just as much value as the mother, and then read an article in favor of pro-choice (you might start with Nora’s article). You may be surprised at how you feel when you’ve finished.

Nathan Singer,

graduate in Labor and Employment Relations