Today marks the 30th anniversary of one of the most controversial U.S. Supreme Court decisions ever, Roe v. Wade, and in a debate often characterized by extreme, rigid rhetoric, this anniversary presents an opportunity for thoughtful discussion on how abortion fits in with American society and values.
The basic premise of the ruling--that women should have a right to do as they please with their own bodies--remains sound and is consistent with how most Americans view their rights to privacy. Before Roe v. Wade, women in states that outlawed abortion were forced to carry to term pregnancies that they did not want, or they chose to have illegal, unsafe abortions. Even now, many American women have limited access to abortion clinics, and doctors who perform abortions often face intimidation and threats. This only underlines the need to keep most abortions safe and legal.
But the ability of a woman's privacy rights to defend abortion only exists as long as one sees a fetus as simply part of a woman's body. In the first trimester of a pregnancy, a developing child is clearly physically dependent on the mother and could not live on its own outside the womb. It lacks many of the basic characteristics of a human being, and women should have the right to an abortion in the first trimester for any reason. Ensuring the continuation of this right goes a long way in protecting abortion rights because the vast majority of abortions do or can take place in the first three months.
By contrast, abortions in the last three months of a pregnancy are far more rare, and at such a point a developing child has a very high chance of survival outside the mother's womb. To allow indiscriminate abortion at such a late stage would be morally abhorrent, and states that have put restrictions on late-term abortions are acting reasonably and prudently. Women whose life is endangered by a late-term pregnancy should be the most clear exception to this rule.
Abortion rights proponents claim that late-term restrictions present a "slippery slope" that would eventually allow the elimination of all abortion rights, and opponents hold up "partial-birth abortions" as a political red herring; both could benefit from realizing that there is a middle ground.
Some time between the first and third trimesters lies a point at which a child becomes viable and deserves greater protection. This line differs for every pregnancy, and it has certainly changed over 30 years as doctors' ability to keep premature babies alive has improved. This line should be the guiding standard for when abortion should become restricted.
Court rulings do not last forever, especially those that depend on cultural and scientific beliefs that are easily subject to change over time. Roe v. Wade is one such decision, and other adjustments may be necessary as genetic selection becomes more of a reality. However, the vast majority of abortions should remain safe and legal.
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.