GrowUp.org

When does life begin?  That really is the crux of the abortion issue since once a fetus turns into a baby, most people understand that "aborting it" is equivalent to "killing her."  Now, of course, the answer to that viability question is not clear, which always makes this a tough issue.  Of course, the scientists (and science textbooks) have historically defined life in general as beginning at fertilization.  But there are other considerations that also impact this issue. 

If the physical health of the mother becomes endangered, then the abortion decision becomes a tradeoff between the life of the mother vs that of the baby.  Certainly a difficult decision, but one that most realistic abortion opposers agree allows for the life of the mother to prevail, even if the baby is viable.

If the physical health of the baby is in doubt, then the abortion decision becomes a quality of life decision on the part of the mother.  This is where opinions really start to diverge.  To those that believe "all life is precious," aborting any viable baby despite expected health problems is just wrong.  Also, what if the medical forecast is incorrect (is it better to let ten unhealthy babies live to save one healthy one?).  Further, there are also those who question the rights of another to determine when your quality of life is insufficient to justify your existence.  It is difficult to determine where most abortion opposers fall on this front, but most reasonable people find it difficult to force someone else to agree to their opinion on this front and therefore remain conflicted and somewhat ambivalent.

It is relevant to note that most pro-abortion advocates point to these first two cases as the reason for the legality of abortion and the reasons that the vast majority of abortions occur.  This is something that clearly the vast majority of Americans would agree with.  The problem, however, is whether or not those statements are true  - especially the latter. 

If the mental health of the mother is impacted, then the line starts to become very clear.  The use of the mothers' mental health to justify aborting an otherwise viable baby is too much for abortion opposers.  Most are against this reasoning even prior to viability, especially when mental health is code for inconvenience.  Abortion advocates are clearly in favor of this, especially prior to viability.  The term pro-choice derives from just this kind of logic - That it is the mother's burden and therefore her choice. 

One of the original, and less acknowledged, uses of abortion was to prevent societies unwanted from being born.  Essentially abortion was justified on the basis of the mental health of the baby (to stay with our logical pattern).  Planned parenthood was founded on the eugenics principle that society would be better off limiting certain races since they were less qualified to survive.  This has in practice expanded to include certain classes as well.  Obviously, this is anathema to abortion opposers, but it's difficult to judge underlying motives and I find it questionable to assert that most abortion advocates really understand or agree with this.  The relevant question, though, is whether or not in practice this results in the same effects.  When someone says that society is better off by not having unwanted children being born, they usually (though not necessarily consciously) mean that those children would be born poor, and therefore more likely to be criminals, and therefore society is better off not having them in the first place.  This is a key point of difference between left and right, in that the left believes that poverty certainly causes, and even to some extent excuses, crime.

If you're on the political left, please email your thoughts on this issue to: issues@growup.org.  

We care more about truth and clarity than agreement and would love to post the best arguments to help people understand this issue more clearly. 

We will post at least the top three from each side, so please help us help you, and more importantly the undecided.

If you're on the political right, please email your thoughts on this issue to: issues@growup.org.  

We care more about truth and clarity than agreement and would love to post the best arguments to help people understand this issue more clearly. 

We will post at least the top three from each side, so please help us help you, and more importantly the undecided. 

Everyone has to understand that a fetus is a baby at some point.  Whether you think that point is later than someone else, it should still give you pause if you advocate its destruction (whether for its own or someone else's good).  Clearly, it is not in a position to defend itself.