Exchanging Arguments on The Issue of Reproductive Choice:

Dear Mr. Anderson,

I am writing to you today to discuss the issue of reproductive choice. I recently read your article entitled “Arguments Against Abortion” written on behalf of the Probe Ministries. Your article offers a thorough examination of the biblical, medical, legal, and philosophical arguments against abortion. However, given the recent victory of President Bush over Senator John Kerry and controversy regarding future appointments to the Supreme Court, I ask you to reconsider your position. The precedent of Roe vs. Wade has been thrown into serious question: It is imperative that you at least consider several counter-arguments. I believe in the continued necessity of the Roe decision and hope it maintains its place in American jurisprudence.

While the pro-choice/pro-life debate has been focused on defining the start of life, the rights afforded to mother and fetus, and the ties of religion to this argument, I will argue against a ban on all abortions from a purely pragmatic standpoint. The ethics and morality of the reproductive choice debate are, in my opinion, too nebulous to facilitate solid argumentation.

I will start by noting that in the medical world today, death is defined by the loss of conscious brain activity (CBC News). A person is only considered dead when brain waves that can be read with an EEG cease to appear. From a purely logical standpoint, it seems that the standard that defined death should also be that which medically defines life. Developmental biologists have confirmed that such conscious, patterned brain activity appears in the late second trimester of a pregnancy (Schneider). This timeframe corresponds well with the standard outlined in Roe. By offering free, unhindered access to abortion until the growing fetus has patterned brain waves, the medical community and our society can maintain an internally consistent standard on the definition of life – a standard which is grounded in objective medical facts, rather than religious, social, or ethical argument.

In addition to this medically grounded argument, an additional argument arises from historical lessons during periods when abortion was criminalized. In the decades prior to the legalization of abortion in the U.S., “millions of women sought illegal abortions. Thousands died. Tens of thousands were mutilated” (Planned Parenthood of America). The bottom line is that even with stringent anti-abortion laws, some “women will feel that an abortion is absolutely necessary and will still have abortions without medical care in dangerous circumstances” (Planned Parenthood of America). Recent laws in Portugal sentence hospital workers aiding in an abortion procedure or mother’s receiving an abortion to three years in prison (Women on Waves). However, 20,000 women a year still have illegal abortions, and 5,000 of these women are hospitalized annually. Estimates indicate that a woman is 150 times more likely to die from a back-alley abortion than from a medically-conducted abortion (Women on Waves). Many of the same citizens who voted for this legislation now regret the referendum: While they do not agree with the procedure, they would rather have it legalized than have women dieing unnecessarily (AFP). Old and recent records from history suggest that the threat of back-alley abortions is too great to justify a prohibition on reproductive choice.

Much like the problems arising from back-alley abortions, there are practical considerations involving the viability of the fetus. While the pro-life side has largely characterized abortion as a poor solution to a huge mistake (i.e. an unwanted pregnancy), there are numerous cases where a mother finds out that her child will suffer from a lethal, devastating illness. Conditions such as cystic fibrosis, leukemia, and spinal bifida are all cases where a child dies very early on in age and suffers through what short life it has. Many women would rather not bring a being into the world that will suffer for its entire existence: Such an act might be considered inhumane and impractical. If both the child and the mother will live uncomfortably for the duration of the child’s existence, birth may be more harmful than productive. With the increasing demand for pre-genetic diagnosis, this situation is becoming more common. I urge you to consider this alternative need for an abortion – a need which does not rest on irresponsibility of the mother, but rather, on an unfortunate set of genetic events that doom a child to a life of plight, pain, and discomfort.

While the issue of reproductive choice is certainly not straightforward, the practical considerations governing the debate must be given heavy weight. The government – which represents the people and remains separate from religion – has a duty to consider the utility of its policies. Access to abortions is a fundamental issue of individual choice, a cornerstone of this country’s principles. We must recognize that legislation and punitive measures are not the solution to unwanted pregnancy; education and expanded family planning services offer the only realistic, pragmatically sound solution.

Respectfully submitted,

Sid Puram

---

Dear Mr. Puram,

Thank you very much for bringing this matter to light in response to Mr. Anderson's article. The recent election is not the first event to inspire my contemplation on this matter – my childhood was riddled with anti-abortion propaganda. I attended a catholic high school and thus “morality” classes focused on the death penalty, poverty, abortion and other topics in this realm. However, the country's decision to reinstate President Bush for another term does cause concern beyond that which was displayed in any classroom.

While I may not have a firm stance on the political issue of abortion, I have a sound foundation of morals on which to base my ethical arguments. I will just briefly say now that I feel that the process of destroying life, or even potential life, is an outright attack on the fabric of humanity. Yet while this may be my ethical standpoint, my practical views notice that abortion now seems to be inevitable and any legal sanction would unnecessarily cause more harm than good. The bloodshed seems to be the unfortunate product of the American society. Abortions have become the solution to the far too common unwanted pregnancies. American society has promoted the prevalence of unwanted pregnancy by making abortions readily available.

Nevertheless, I must look at your ideas concerning the medical reasons for abortion. I am a bit confused by your argument about the beginning of life. You make a statement to define the threshold for when the procedure may be considered murder. Yet later you make the point that abortion should remain legal regardless because of the social implications of reversing the Roe vs Wade precedent. While this may be the case, I still wish to present the views that always made sense to me. I would urge you to consider the difference between the beginning of life and the end of life. Brain waves are certainly characteristic of you, me and all of the “living” people we know. The development process of the human body delays the installment of cognizant brain activity until a viable support system is in place. Defining life by when it is in a detectable form completely neglects the notion of development. Destroying a caterpillar or cocoon is destroying a butterfly, even though it may not be distinguishable as a butterfly. The same idea holds for the transition between a fetus and a so-called “living” infant. Destroying the fetus curbs an ongoing process of creating life—an action which essentially is destroying life.

While there are certainly many arguments about when life begins, I am interested in your view that abortion is a political necessity. Looking at the institution of anti-abortion laws in Portugal, I have found that the Portuguese authorities reported only 123 women hospitalized as a result of back alley abortions (AFP). The validity of Portugal as a viable battleground is in itself debatable. On one hand, some journalists and reporters support your position while others claim that the laws are effective as a deterrent. I would say that access to abortion makes the fright of becoming pregnant somehow less scary. It may be horrible to feel that this is the case, but I conjecture that more stringent laws will inspire women to be more careful.

I can see that you are concerned for not only the physical health of the mother, but also for the mental and emotional health as well. Having a child with a fatal disease can certainly be a difficult experience for both the family and the child. I wonder if this reason for abortion is similar to euthanasia: mercy killing. When a family discovers their loved one has one of these fatal diseases after birth, they do their best to prolong his or her life, not end it.

You mention, “there are practical considerations involving the viability of the fetus.” I agree. Technology makes it possible for babies to survive premature births as early as five and a half months. Suppose for a moment that technology continues to prove that the fetus can survive from earlier and earlier times. If the child had remained in the womb for that time, it would have been subject to abortive procedures, yet while outside, it has all the rights of a human being. I will now stretch science to prove my point. If it was possible to simulate conception and environment of the uterus, when would the clump of cells be considered life? Only when it began producing brainwaves?

Thank you,

Justin Rigling

---

Dear Mr. Rigling,

I appreciate your insight on the issue of a woman’s right to choice. I would like to thank you at the outset for responding to my letter on this important social and political issue. Only by engaging in honest and serious intellectual discussion can society even begin to reach a consensus on this contentious issue. However, as currently stated, I find much of your opinion unjustified and poorly supported.

You mention that “that the process of destroying life, or even potential life, is an outright attack on the fabric of humanity;” however, you do not provide any explanation on how destruction of an embryo is such an assault on the nebulous concept of humanity. The argument you propose rests on a fundamental assumption that an embryo is life itself, or has the potential for life. But, this claim ignores the reliance of an embryo on its mother. Without the support and nurturing care of the mother, the embryo will not live – it does not have the potential for life. In a sense, the mother is offering her body literally as a place of development for another being. The child is part of her body, integrated within her blood vessels down to the very capillaries of her placenta wall. In the U.S. today, the standard of bodily integrity protects a person from giving up their blood, from being raped, and even from being strip-searched. If such acts are considered part of the body – that is, within the control and personal jurisdiction of the individual – how can the government possibly entertain a standard where a being inside of a mother is not as well? Overturning Roe vs. Wade would threaten fundamental rights guaranteed by the bodily integrity standard and start this country down a slippery slope of curtailing privacy rights.

While I agree that some “abortions have become the solution to the far too common unwanted pregnancies,” this proposition ignores the diversity of abortion uses. Pro-life groups have twisted the issue into a fight against irresponsible mothers who deserve punishment for their “transgressions.” I believe that your statement is akin to this sentiment. I ask you to consider the thousands of women who have abortions because they were raped, because their husbands left them, or because their health is threatened. The decision to have an abortion is not easy: Having talked to many women who have received abortions during my time as President of MIT’s Pro-choice group, they consistently note the difficulty of the decision despite its necessity. Your exploration of the issue makes abortion seem easy or simple – a characterization that could not be further from the truth. Reproductive choice organizations like Planned Parenthood, which offer abortion as one of many options during pregnancy, emphasize the medical and emotional difficulties that can result. I urge you to consider women who have abortions to be rational, logical, and sensitive, rather than brash, irresponsible, and inconsiderate.

You liken my position regarding non-viable children to euthanasia. However, in many cases, euthanasia is the most financially, ethically, and morally reasonable option. Although I do not wish to instigate a debate on a completely different social issue, I do seriously believe that living a life of suffering and pain is not a life worth living. While it is impossible for one person to speak on behalf of another on such a personal issue, societal standards can dictate what experiences are truly horrible. For example, the international community has identified procedures that are considered torturous and thus, violate fundamental standards of human rights. If the world can come together to define unreasonable pain and suffering in this context, what prevents doctors and patients from identifying conditions that might similarly be so horrible as to justify the option of abortion.

As you note, defining the start of life is certainly difficult. However, I do not believe your attack on my medically based standard of conscious brain activity is adequate. To begin with, you offer no realistic alternative. While your Catholic upbringing may encourage a view that identified conception as the start of life, the government – which must separate itself from religion – cannot incorporate such beliefs into its standard for defining life. I believe the medically-grounded definition is the most objective standard: It is a standard that the government can embrace without fear of judicial reprimand. Moreover, as I biologist, I would argue that characteristics of death are intimately connected with the qualities of life. Loss of conscious brain waves is the loss of life; thus, presence of such waves should define the existence of life. You mention that development involves growth of support systems for the brain, systems which are intrinsic to the embryos life even prior to its cognizant brain activity. However, by that standard, individuals who are medically “dead” in the U.S. are not truly dead. After all, organs from their bodies are often used for transplants and retain their status as operating “support systems.” It seems that based on your definition, life never ceases to exist in those that pass away. This position is simply untenable: A medically grounded standard for defining life is the only way of settling an otherwise subjective argument.

You focus specifically on the potential of technology to reduce the minimal point at which a fetus is “viable.” However, even if it were the case that from the time of conception, a fetus was viable, I still believe a medically-defined standard is applicable. A fetus without cognizant brain activity, in my opinion, could still be aborted whether inside or outside the womb, much like a grown person who is brain dead or in an extended coma. Technology does not change my definition of when life begins.

While I have responded point-by-point to your ethical and moral arguments, I ask again that you focus on the practical considerations related to abortion. These are the considerations that will ultimate guide government action, since most political bodies follow utilitarian principles in policy-making. Your citation from the Portugese government is biased at best: The government is simply trying to justify its policy. Of course their estimates of deaths from back alley abortions will be understated: Admittance to thousands of deaths would hurt civilian relations and impede the conservative agenda of the leadership. In fact, the government that you cite has recently prohibited a referendum on this policy despite proponents securing enough signatures to guarantee such a plebiscite under law (Women on Waves). To identify “the validity of Portugal as a viable battleground” as debatable, ignores the importance of this example in providing clear proof of the need for constructive solutions rather than punishments for abortions.

It is imperative that we encourage education and family planning services, not criminalization and jail time for women who seek only to control their own bodies and their futures.
Sincerely,

Sid Puram

---

Dear Mr. Puram,

I would like to mention first that I respond to your letters out of respect for your ideas and the continued development of both our views. The journey to creating a better would must be done by the interaction of minds, the exchange of ideas, and the examination of validity.

I am beginning to understand the need for an objective medical definition for the onset of life. Subjectivity allows too much gray area to be misinterpreted. So I will try to look at this from a more biological prospective. An embryo reproduces his own cells and uses them in specific array of function. It is human because it contains the 46 human chromosomes, given to him by his mother and father at conception. The only input or output that the mother has is merely to facilitate the exchange of nutrients and wastes. The embryo, or young life, has everything it needs to change from tiny clump of cells into the walking talking citizens of this country.

Throughout his stay in the uterus, a fetus has many characteristics that are definitive of life. In the range of 20-24 weeks, the fetus displays response to pain, touch, cold, sound, and light. He has taste: drinking more amniotic fluid if it is artificially sweetened and less if is it bitter. He exhibits a baby's hiccups or thumb sucking. There are identifiable sleep cycles. Research shows that the fetus attempts to protect itself during abortion. Something not living would not attempt to stop its own demise. (Willke)

While it may be best for the mother of an unwanted child to give up her child because of social or economical reasons, it is not best for that life to just be terminated. Many pro-choice arguments center on the idea that and unwanted child will not receive the the childhood it deserves. In the United States, there is a demand for adoptions that cannot be filled. This provides another avenue for alleviating the need for abortion. Certainly this requires the mother to carry the child to term. Statistics show that the mother has less chance of injury if she has a birth rather than an abortion. Adoptions seem to provide a “win-win” solution.

Another point I would briefly like to discuss regards the governments permission of abortion procedures. The FDA has stringent rules about the side effects of every drug it certifies for use in the United States. Death is never allowed to be a possible consequence of the direct use of any drug. Why is it then that the government allows a procedure that is known to be dangerous. Researchers from the statistical analysis unit of Finland's National Research and Development Center for Welfare and Health, found that compared to women who carried to term, women who aborted in the year prior to their deaths were 60 percent more likely to die of natural causes, seven times more likely to die of suicide, four times more likely to die of injuries related to accidents, and 14 times more likely to die from homicide. In 1992-93 at least 23 deaths were directly attributed to abortion. If the duty of the government is to concentrate on the welfare of the people, its direct laws should not knowingly permit for fatal operations.

In the 2000 election, George Bush responded to the question of abortion by saying, “any child, born or unborn, need to be protected by law and welcomed to life. I know we need to change a lot of minds before we get there in America. ” (debates.org) It was a hot topic for that election. Pro-life advocates would expect him to start bills to overturn Roe vs. Wade and pr0-choice advocates would like to here him say that everything will stay the same. His simple response pleased both the proponents of pro-choice and pro-life. On one hand he sedated the notion that any actual changes would be made while giving hope to those who await changes. Even so, his answer captures the very essence of the solution. Those who abhor abortion should not look at the legalization of abortion as the problem. An abortion requires, in most cases, unwanted pregnancies. Changing minds will be the ultimate solution, and unfortunately that takes time.

While it is important to realize the inherent inability of the government to create a truly effective system of education for preventing the unwanted pregnancies, it is also important for the government to make efforts to reduce abortions. It is the government's job to look out for the welfare of it's citizens. Following your argument that access to abortion is necessary to prevent deaths as a result of “back alley” abortions, I say that the government should continue to allow it, for now, while discouraging its use. I agree with you that unwanted pregnancies are the true problem, but the best solution cannot be to foster destruction of life.

While I fundamentally dislike abortion on a moral level and you accept it as a political necessity, we both seem to agree that abortion should not be a solution. While its institution is now important to prevent back alley abortions, perhaps a better solution lies in widespread birth control. This relies on the prevention of pregnancy rather than the removal of its product. I have noticed that an important facility of many college campuses is the easy access to free condoms. I would like to see the government educate today's teen and encourage safe practices. It would be less taxing on the American Society to create smarter, safer individuals rather than continue the costly process of legalized abortions. I admit that this is certainly an unexplored venue, but perchance it has potential to decrease the prevalence of unwanted pregnancies and thus abortions.

Thank you,

Justin Rigling

Sources:

“1,000 Women Hospitalized in Portugal After Backstreet Abortions,” Agence France Presse: Nov. 3, 2004. http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/afp/20041103/ hl_afp/ portugal_women_abortion.

“Abortion vs. Childbirth” <http://hometown.aol.com/dfjoseph/Abortionvschildbirth2.html>

Anderson, Kerby (President of Probe Ministries). “Arguments Against Abortions,” Leadership U: Aug. 5, 2003. http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/arg-abor.html.

“Broader Definition of Death,” CBC Health and Science News: 2004. http://www.cbc.ca/story/ science/national/2004/11/22/organ-donors041122.html.

“Criminalisation of Abortion in Portugal,” Women on Waves: Aug. 23, 2004. http://www.womenonwaves.org/article-1020.52-en.html.

“Debate Transcript” Commission on Presidential Debates October 3, 2000 http://www.debates.org/pages/trans2000a.html

“Nine Reasons Why Abortions are Legal,” Planned Parenthood of America: March 1989. http://www.plannedparenthood.org/ABORTION/9reasons.html.

Schneider, Jerry. Personal Correspondence. Nov. 29, 2004.

Willke, Dr. J.C. and Mrs..“Why can't we love them both” Chapter 21. Heritage House 76, Inc 1998 <http://www.abortionfacts.com/online_books/love_them_both/why_cant_we_love_them_both_21.asp#Abortion%20Deaths>