In light of recent laws, columns and editorials, I believe it important to outline exactly why pro-choice activists oppose President George W. Bush's Partial Birth Abortion Ban. In essence, we argue against the ban on practical, political and moral levels.
First, the practical. As Meghan Valerio stated in her Nov. 10 column, "Dilation and Extraction in a Culture of Life," it is dangerously naive to believe that government legislation can ever end the practice of abortion. Despite any Congressional ban, illegal abortions jeopardizing the mother's health will continue to occur--just as they did in the pre-Roe v. Wade era. The main effect of such anti-abortion legislation is simply to drive abortion underground, not to eliminate it.
Second, the political. Despite Burke Thomas' attempt to dismiss pro-choice protests as a "conspiracy theory," it seems relatively probable that the bill's advocates will try to use the PBA Ban as a springboard for future legislation. Pro-Life advocate John Jacubcyzk, for example, has been quoted saying "that procedure [late-term abortion] isn't what we care most about. Our goal is to stop abortion at any age of development."
Additionally, the bill's advocates in Congress refused to change the deliberately vague wording of the bill in response to pro-choice complaints--room has purposefully been left for interpretation beyond the realm of late-term abortion. Such legislation is a slippery slope.
Finally, the moral. The fundamental question of the abortion debate is simply: What constitutes life? Unfortunately, the concept of "life" is sufficiently abstract and especially at the fetal level. In this gray areas, the crucial question must then instead become: Who should make the decision of when the life of a fetus begins? The person most affected by the decision: the mother, not the government.
Colleen Denny
Trinity '05
The author is a member of Duke Students for Choice
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.