Alliance Holds Moral Ground

Two weeks ago, I found a 12-page pamphlet inside my entryway basket. The brochure, titled "She's a Child--Not a Choice," was distributed across campus by the Harvard-Radcliffe Alliance for Life. Its intent was to draw attention to the 33.5 million abortions in the United States since 1972.

Compared to other brochures published by pro-life and pro-choice groups, this one was done tastefully. The material consisted of factual accounts and personal reflections by medical experts and patients about abortion's impact on women, families and civil society.

There were no pictures of aborted fetuses hacked to pieces and floating in a sea of blood. The most vivid photo was a color ultrasound of a 16-week-old child resting in her mother's womb. Her eyes, nose, mouth and hands were perfectly formed. She was sucking her thumb in innocent comfort.

The booklet's message was obvious: Abortion stops a beating heart. For many, the debate stops there. No cost/benefit analysis can outweigh the competing moral claim that abortion obliterates human life.

In recent weeks, it has been proposed by supporters of choice on this campus that the appeals in the pamphlet to one's moral conscience are "inimical to what campus debate should be." As if the pre-born child were irrelevant, the advocates assert that the picture was "designed to provoke an immediate emotional reaction rather than rational debate."

But these pro-choice advocates clearly aren't in support of open dialogue. First, they oppose such legislation as parental notification acts or a 24-hour waiting period for reflection and counseling. Second, they conveniently ignore the fact that many citizens cannot make an informed decision without first determining whether abortion truly involves the murder of an unborn child--a decision aided by the data contained in pamphlets like the one recently distributed.

Most troubling is the liberals' insistence that pro-life groups bracket their moral arguments from debate. They claim Roe v. Wade neither encourages nor discourages women from seeking abortions; it only grants women the freedom to make this decision for themselves.

But legalized abortion springs from the moral decision that toleration of the practice outweighs all competing claims of justice. This is best illustrated by the 1858 Lincoln-Douglas Debates, in which Stephen A. Douglas claimed he would tolerate slavery even though he personally opposed it. Abraham Lincoln correctly replied that a neutrality claim embodies an antecedent moral judgment. Once cannot adopt neutrality towards something he opposes, Lincoln said, because "no man can logically say he doesn't care whether a wrong is voted up or voted down.... [I]f it is a wrong, [one] cannot say people have a right to do wrong."

The same logic holds for abortion: Pro-choice supporters have implicitly resolved that abortion is not murder. If it is murder, they cannot logically explain their decision that one has the right to commit such a terrible wrong.

Pro-choice liberals criticize attempts to frame the debate in moral terms. But the Roe v. Wade decision itself makes moral distinctions. The nine Supreme Court justices ruled that abortion could be limited during the fetus' final trimester because the "potential life" has now reached their definition of "viability." Pro-life activists counter with morally-informed and no more arbitrary ages of their own: as early as 60 days (when all the child's organs are functioning) or as late as five months (when premature babies are born and survive with the aid of medical technology).

Freedom of choice is highly valued in the United States. But it has always been tempered by moral concerns. Laws banning adultery, prostitution and cruelty to animals reflect moral condemnation of such practices. Regulation of these acts, as well as of abortion, means confronting the relevant moral issues at stake rather than evading them.

Community and family are both competing concerns to absolute freedom. Over 90 percent of abortions are performed simply because the mother does not want the child, while only I percent result from rape or incest, according to the Alan Guttmacher Institute. Society must consider, then, whether abortion contributes to the breakdown of the family, lack of personal responsibility and diminished overall respect for life. If so, then freedom of choice need not trump cries for regulation.

More dialogue is needed on abortion, not less. Activists cannot discard their moral convictions any more than society can remain neutral on controversial issues. And if innocuous photos of a developing fetus revulse pro-choice advocates, then perhaps they should reconsider what their neutrality really means.

Christopher R. McFadden '97 is a senior editor of The Crimson.