Civil Rights and Abortion

In a recent New York Times editorial ("Pro-Choice But Anti-Naral," 8-13-05), Op-Ed columnist John Tierney rightly criticizes Naral Pro Choice America for its anti-Roberts ad campaign, but incorrectly characterizes the abortion debate. According to Tierney, the debate should not be framed in terms of civil rights because the rights of pregnant women are cancelled out by the rights of fetuses. He goes on to say that the abortion debate "...can't be resolved by appealing to any widely held moral or legal principles." Oh really??

What he fails to consider, and what the abortion debate often fails to highlight is the concept of personhood, most aptly defined in Websters as, "...characterized by conscious apprehension, rationality, and a moral sense." Granted, there may be a few adults who don't fit this definition--several members of the Bush administration come to mind--but more importantly, not a single fetus qualifies for personhood status. A fetus only has the potential, and God/Mother Nature/The Universe/Fate sees fit to abort the fetus and end its potential in a quarter of all pregnancies.

When we talk about civil rights, we talk about the rights of persons, not potential persons. This is not an arbitrary distinction, but rather a principle that finds its expression in myriad laws and standards. We treat minors differently because they are often neither rational nor operating with a fully formed moral sense. We don't put animals on trial for killing people because animals don't qualify for personhood. Indeed, late term abortions are mostly prohibited because we suspect that the increasingly viable fetus is approaching the gray area between potential and actual personhood. With this in mind, abortion should remain legal for at least the first two trimesters because the right of a woman to control her own body and destiny clearly supercedes the imagined desire of a potential person to fulfill that potential. After all, I'm not sure what I will desire tomorrow, but I'm quite sure that when I was a fetus I had no conscious desires at all.

Tierney goes on to imply that overturning Roe v. Wade would be a good thing because when each state is given the chance to outlaw abortion, the public will rise up and vote to keep it legal. Is he kidding? What country has he been living in for the last five years? Fundamentalist, evangelical, born-again fanatics have been bullying, shaming and brainwashing their communities with missionary zeal for years now, and have armies of voters ready to outlaw abortion at first opportunity in more than a few states. When that happens, a woman living under their superstitious, theocratic dominion will have her rights supplanted by the rights of a microscopic bundle of cells in her womb. Without Federal protection, the rights of persons will surely be undermined by the imagined rights of potential persons. It is about rights. Tierney got it wrong.