GUEST COLUMN: "Abortion: A Third Movement?"

"I don't look at the fetus as a life. [A woman] should have every right to have an abortion as quickly as she would have a cancer removed." · To me, this quote by a College junior in a DP issue earlier this month was the last straw. I can no longer passively go along with the pro-choice side in the polarized debate over abortion. Make no mistake -- I have always and will always support the right to a legal abortion. But I refuse to be represented by people who see abortion as equivalent to tooth extractions, or even "tumor"-removing surgery. Abortion is not a legitimate form of contraception. Conception has already taken place. So what if an eight-week old fetus is not viable outside the womb in 1992? Fifty years ago, an eight-month old fetus was not viable outside the womb. Today it is. And fifty years from now, doctors will probably be able to develop babies-to-be in incubators starting only hours after fertilization. The point? I know this statement is anathema to pro-choicers, but . . . abortion kills babies. It destroys human lives, not just a disposable mass of tissue. This is not a "Hands Off My Body" issue. How can I say that pro-lifers are essentially correct and still support legal abortion? Because I believe there are certain situations where sacrifices -- even as costly as taking a baby's life -- are warranted. And because I also believe that the prospective mother is in the best position to make that decision -- not elderly, check-bouncing Congressmen, not Bible-quoting religionists. What if a teenage girl must decide between completing her pregnancy, dropping out of school and becoming helplessly welfare-dependent on one hand; or getting a safe, legal abortion, staying in school, getting a job and eventually settling down with the right man, on the other hand? It's up to her to think the issue through for herself and not be spoon-fed advice from anyone unless she asks for it. If her final conclusion is that having a baby would ruin not only her life, but the baby's along with it, then she is justified in getting an abortion. That doesn't mean a back-alley, dirty coat-hanger butcher job. It means a professional, safe procedure legal in all 50 states. In this case . . . abortion saves lives. And I support it wholeheartedly -- as long as all considerations are taken into account by the mother. I can't stand the thought of women making such a difficult decision without considering the life of the fetus -- it is a life. Abortion should never be seen as an alternative option to true birth control methods such as condoms and the pill. Nevertheless, nearly half of all women in abortion clinics are return customers. Yet, accidents happen. Even worse, there are many women who have little educational or economic means to prevent unwanted pregnancies. That's why people who want to protect the baby's life should never be allowed to impose their values on others. The goal of those who are morally offended by abortion -- including many like myself who side with pro-choicers anyway -- should not be the reversal of Roe v. Wade. The goal should be a massive education effort focusing on safe sex and contraception, instead of an idealistic "no premarital sex," "every sperm is sacred" approach. If religionists can make the small sacrifice of supporting condom distribution to teenagers, and sexually active couples can make the small sacrifice of using condoms, then fewer people would be forced to make the huge sacrifice of abortion -- which is morally wrong, but all too often tragically necessary. Even though this third movement -- both pro-choice and anti-abortion -- could cause a damaging rift with many current members of the pro-choice movement, I believe a consensus would eventually be reached. Only then will all sides of the abortion debate -- as well as the voiceless babies -- be somewhat appeased.

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.