When the U.S. Supreme Court issued the Roe vs. Wade decision in 1973, a nascent social movement had taken root in American culture. It was a siren song of self-centeredness. Some commentators called the 1970s the “me” decade because of the movement’s argument that individual’s rights were paramount over societal responsibilities. The pro-choice movement is based on that philosophy because it portrays abortion as merely hinging on a woman’s control over her own body.
However, developments since the 1970s have rendered this argument outdated. One such development is our greater understanding of who is involved in an abortion decision. Thanks to medical advances, we can see unborn children in the womb with heads, legs, arms, fingers, toes and beating hearts. We know better now that the fetus is not a blob of tissue, as pro-choice advocates suggest. Rather, these are real human beings who are killed when a woman chooses to go through with an abortion.
The “me” generation has passed in many ways. Today, we realize this is an interconnected society, not one where individuals’ decisions have no impact on others. The argument about control over our bodies breaks down in real situations. For example, governments require children to be vaccinated before attending schools. This policy is intended to prevent the spread of communicable diseases, and most of us appreciate that other children are inoculated before they are sent to school with our children, even though it means a person’s body is not under his or her control. A person inducted into the military loses control over his or her body since the government can tell them what to do. Similarly, in a mandatory evacuation order, government tells us what to do with our bodies in leaving an area.
Yet, the “me” generation, self-centered philosophy still lingers in the abortion debate. The pro-choice movement refuses to admit the uniqueness of pregnancy. In no other situation in the human condition does one person reside within another. The ‘control of my body” argument does not fit neatly in this case because there is more than one body at stake, as we know better now than we did 40 years ago.
Not only does abortion involve two people, but one of those persons is highly vulnerable because she or he has no voice in the life or death decision of abortion. When someone else, even a custodial parent, is inclined to end the life of a child, society has an obligation to protect children and signal that some acts are morally unacceptable. Abortion should be illegal in most cases because such a message communicates that vulnerable children — born or unborn — are valued by a society. Allowing abortion in most cases is a societal signal that individuals can disregard the sanctity of human life.
Supposedly, liberals are pro-choice and conservatives pro-life. But those ideological designations are meaningless. A liberal does not share the 1970s “me generation” view of selfishness, i.e. complete personal rights sans obligations to others. A liberal knows that approach undermines the societal values that protect us all. The liberal sees two lives, not just one, in a pregnancy and cherishes both of them. The liberal does not sanction the taking of human life simply based on whether that child is wanted by a mother.
The “me generation” pro-choice arguments are outdated. We now know more about the humanity of the child in the womb and that two people are involved and not just one. The self-centeredness of a past generation does not apply today. Unfortunately, due to the political power of the pro-choice movement, public policy has not caught up with this change.
There are times when a woman should be allowed to have an abortion, such as rape, incest and serious consequences for the life or health of the mother. But in other cases, abortion should be illegal. Yes, there would be backroom abortions by truly desperate women and, therefore, enforcement should not be draconian. Yet, the larger societal message that abortion is a crime will lead the vast majority of women who now have abortions to choose life for their children rather than death.
Richard Davis is a professor of political science at Brigham Young University. He is the author of "The Liberal Soul: Applying the Gospel of Jesus Christ in Politics." His opinions do not necessarily reflect those of BYU.