COMPROMISE ON ABORTION IS COMMON SENSE (10-2003)

In 1973 the Supreme Court determined that laws preventing women from having an abortion
were in violation of a woman's right to privacy. With certain exceptions, whether or not to have
an abortion should be left up to the woman and her doctor, the court said.

The case was Roe v. Wade and it was a landmark decision in favor of a woman's right to choose
what's best for herself. Yet in the intervening 30 years since the High Court handed down its
ruling, abortion rights have remained one of the most controversial subjects of all time. Some
extremists have even committed murder to show their support for the right to life.

Last week, after eight years of failed attempts, Congress passed and sent to the president
legislation that would outlaw certain types of procedures known as partial-birth abortions. These
are abortions performed during childbirth. 

The bill's supporters called the procedure barbaric. And President Bush said it was an "abhorrent
practice." Abortion foes claimed a major victory in their quest to ultimately make all abortions
illegal.

But those who are pro-choice said the law would be immediately challenged in the courts. And
even some of its supporters believe it faces an uphill battle there.

Abortion foes are mostly those who believe that life begins at conception, complete with a soul.
Hence, killing a fetus would be the same as murdering a person who is already born. The
majority of those supporting the pro-life movement are right-wing religious zealots who insist
that they have the monopoly opinion on morality.

Those who believe in the pro-choice movement insist that nobody should have the power to
make a personal decision for a woman concerning what is taking place within her own body.
Most believe that the question of whether or not there is a soul and, if so, when it enters a living
body, is one that cannot be legislated.

There are those who believe that not even a newborn baby has a soul. The soul, they say, enters
the body only after the child becomes sentient and develops a personality. That view does make
sense. 

Although there is no scientific proof that souls exist, those of faith need no proof. They simply
believe it.

Yet if a newborn infant dies, and its soul goes to Heaven, does it exist as the soul of an infant for
eternity? Is it forever condemned to remain unknowing and unaware of its surroundings, unable
to experience the joys of its new home in Heaven? And if so, how much less would the soul of an
unborn fetus be able to experience?

These may sound like simplistic questions, but how simple can they be if nobody really has the
answers? And if no one has the answers about our eternal souls, then how can Congress, in good
conscience, pass legislation that seems to decide those questions for everyone?

Granted, partial-birth abortions probably should be illegal, unless they are medically necessary to
save the mother's life. But the current legislation makes no provision for the mother's life or
health.

Realistically, if a woman is going to have an abortion for any reason other than to save her life or
health, she should have it as early in the pregnancy as possible. For the sake defining how early
in legal terms, all abortions should take place prior to the point when a fetus would have a
reasonable expectation of surviving outside the mother's womb. 

With today's medical technology, that would be prior to about the six-month point in the
pregnancy. So, abortions should be solely up to the mother and her doctor during the first two
trimesters of pregnancy. But it should be performed only to save the mother's life or health
during the third trimester.

It seems like a common sense solution, but apparently only to those who actually have common
sense.