The column in the Nov. 14 Daily titled “Tired of the same old myths about Roe v. Wade” by Abby Bar-Lev is a little misguided. Bar-Lev writes: “Another myth about Roe is that it allows abortion at any time throughout the pregnancy.” What she says, however, is the myth. She says what the Roe v. Wade decision ruled. Abortion is legal anytime throughout the first trimester, legal when the woman’s health is a concern in the second and only when the woman’s health is at risk in the third.
Last time I checked, there were only three trimesters, so if an abortion is possible in all three, then a woman can get an abortion throughout the entire pregnancy. The word health is both a physical and psychological term. If a woman goes into an abortion clinic and tells the doctors she is suffering psychologically, they are allowed to perform the abortion. Sounds like a loophole to me. I think a woman who knows she is pregnant for more than six months is capable of figuring out she is suffering earlier than that.
The 14th Amendment is also mentioned. I believe that amendment states: “nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” I challenge anyone to prove to me that a fetus is not a person. It has all the required genetic material of a human being. This material is the difference between every living thing on earth. Therefore, if it is not a person, a human being, then what is it? How else are human beings distinguished? The only other time I know of when people try to deny the status of a human being to people is genocide. I would like to mention the Declaration of Independence. It states: “We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, which among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.” Aborted babies are denied all these unalienable rights, beginning with life.
The column also states that a fetus, Latin for “young one”, is a part of the woman’s body, up to a point. The fetus has a different genetic code than the mother. He or she is not a part of the woman’s body at any time during the pregnancy.
A laughable point is attempted in the conclusion of the column. It states: “Abortion is not even the issue ” choice is the issue. Freedom is the issue. Health is the issue.” The entire column has been talking about abortion, discussing the Roe v. Wade decision, and gives information on abortion frequency. Then at the end, it says abortion is not the issue? Choice? Who has any authority to choose whether an innocent life is allowed to continue to live? Freedom? How can this be called freedom, when it directly abuses the freedom of the fetus to choose whether it wants to live or die? Health? This is the worst one yet. Why is destroying a natural bodily process considered healthy? No other operation completely decimates a living being for the health of another. Also, many studies have linked abortion to breast cancer. The breasts of a mother are beginning to prepare for breast feeding and begin to make milk. Then, all of a sudden, the baby is gone. This shock on the system heightens the risk of breast cancer.
Why should abortion be available? People choose to have sex. If pregnancy occurs, why should the parents have a way out of their responsibility? I am not saying babies are a punishment, but, by definition, they are a consequence. I have found that sex is the only action people are attempting to make consequence-free. No one wants responsibility. Ask any woman who had an abortion, I guarantee they constantly think of their baby and wish they would have had it. In the words of Mother Teresa, “It is a poverty that a child must die so that we may live as we wish.”
Alan Halverson is a University of St. Thomas student. Please send comments to [email protected].
