Abortion is one of the "hot button" issues in our society. The debate over whether abortion is right or wrong has driven people not just to picket lines, but to acts of violence. Its heavy pull on people's hearts and minds is seen in every election, and has been known to throw the balance of the vote, despite having negligible overall economic and social significance. So prevalent is the high emotion tie to the abortion issue that abortion is something people are loathe to even discuss in casual conversation.

A slim minority of U.S. pregnancies end in medically induced abortion. Abortion fees represent a miniscule portion of the U.S. gross domestic product. Given the very small portion of people in our society who actually have abortions (and I use the term "people" because fathers are often as much part of the decision to abort as mothers) I would wager that very few people in our society have been directly affected by abortion. Thus, the abortion argument is neither an economic nor social one. It is a medical and moral one. The two questions posed most often in the abortion debate are as follows: Are fetuses people? If so, do they have the same rights as people who have been born?

There are some who would say that fetuses are absolutely not people. They would say that life begins at birth, and that to attribute humanity to a fetus is a form of childish and shallow anthropomorphism, giving human qualities to an object simply because it "looks" human. This argument seems fallacious, however, in light of the fact that viability occurs before nine months gestation. If a baby born six weeks premature, kept alive in an incubator is human (and few would argue otherwise), it should stand to reason that a fetus of the same age--still in the womb--is equally human.

Some proponents of abortion would agree, saying that abortion should be illegal after documented viability has occurred. This argument had two holes in it. One is tied to the timing of viability. The viability of premature infants is medically assisted, and is thus dependent on medical technology as much as it is on biological timing. We may reach a point in health care technology where second trimester infants, first trimester infants, even embryos can survive and develop outside of the womb. The other hole in the argument is tied to the definition of viability. There are many people who are so physically disabled that they need constant care and protection from other people to survive. Are these people any more viable than a fetus? For that matter, how much more viable than a fetus is a newborn baby? An infant is still just as dependent on other people for survival. The only thing that has changed is that the infant is no longer exclusively dependent on the mother that gestated it.

It seems reasonable then, with no conclusive evidence that a fetus is not human, to err on the side of caution and consider fetuses to be people. As such, it should be argued that fetuses most certainly are entitled to human rights. The question becomes far more complex when we ask if fetuses are entitled to the same rights as other people. There is no society where all people have equal freedom. Children, for instance, have fewer claims to autonomy and freedom than adults. Children are given less freedom because they have fewer physical and psychological abilities that allow them to exercise freedom consciously or responsibly. With no language, minimal sensory abilities, and a complete dependency on the bodily function of another human being to live, fetuses have even less of an ability to exercise freedom than children. Since children are afforded fewer freedoms than adults, it wouldn't be unreasonable to say that fetuses should be afforded fewer freedoms than children or adults.

What rights, then should fetuses have? When the rights of children are addressed, their secondary rights--the right to live independently, to vote, etc., are cut in favor of their more fundamental rights--their rights to food, shelter, humane treatment, and the like. Yet fetuses cannot be battered or deprived of food by a parent in any conventional sense. The only right children have that fetuses are able to exercise is the right to live.

From a purely moralistic standpoint, it strikes me that abortion is wrong, a violation of human rights. I do not believe that the right to life is subjective, right for some people, and wrong for others, depending on how they feel about it. If every woman who had an abortion had no qualms, no crises of conscience, felt that denying her fetus life was the right thing to do, it would still be wrong, just as killing a convenience store clerk or bank teller would still be wrong even if armed robbers were able to do so without guilt. I feel comfortable taking this absolutist standpoint because I agree with the framers of the U.S. Constitution that some rights are self evident, life among them. I also agree with the champions of moral absolutism who believe that moral relativism is nothing more than an invitation to behavioral anarchy. As long as it can be held through the arguments above that there is every reason to believe fetuses are human, it behooves me to value their lives as human. If I didn't, I would be saying that it's okay not to value the lives of children, invalids, the elderly, and from there, any number of subgroups of human beings. (Perhaps clerks and tellers would be next?)

Having said that, the abortion argument does not end with the immediate answers to the humanity and fundamental rights of fetuses. It extends to the question of how these answers should be legislated. I believe that, although abortion is a moral absolutist issue in concept, it should be treated as a moral relativist issue in practice. It strikes me that ultimately, laws restricting abortion have failed in preventing it. They are very difficult to enforce, since pregnancies can be concealed, and abortions can be performed in quiet, untraceable ways. Even if abortion is murder, it is an act of murder far less detectable than any other. No matter how absolute a given moral principle is, there are instances where no outside influence can force someone to be moral. In this case, relativism becomes the only sound policy. Logistically, the final choice to terminate or complete a pregnancy has always laid in the hands of the mother, no matter what laws were in place. Laws against abortion only serve to needlessly penalize and stigmatize women into hiding decisions they were already inclined to make. The government, in my opinion, cannot prevent or reduce abortion by passing laws that address it directly. The best way to decrease abortion is to pass laws and regulations that encourage people to have sex responsibly and set up support systems for people who are faced with unexpected pregnancies.

Governments tend to be very effective in educating people and even swaying their opinions, and government influence could certainly be used when addressing abortion. Although we seem prepared to face sex in its glamorized form in movies, commercials, and other forms of mass media, we as a society are true to our Puritanical roots when it comes to teaching our children about the realities of sexuality and reproduction. I think one of the better ways for the government to decrease the incidence of abortion would be to mandate that the public schools have a thorough, set sex education curriculum that begins in junior high, rather than the brief one many school districts administer as an afterthought in high school. These programs could teach adolescents and young adults about the responsibilities and risks that come with the fun of their budding sexuality. Since the government has never been adverse to P.R. campaigns in support of causes such as patriotism, abstinence from narcotics, and environmental responsibility, it strikes me that the government should also begin public relations campaigns that target the parents of teens, encouraging them to support their pregnant teenage daughters rather than shaming them or disowning them.

Legislatively, the government could also reduce abortion by passing laws to support single mothers and economically disadvantaged families. Under most current aid programs in this country, needy families are neither provided with daycare nor supplemental income that will allow a parent to stay home and look after the children. Part-time employers are not required to provide maternity leave either. Enacting laws that make child bearing economically viable would almost certainly make many mothers more willing and able to carry their pregnancies to term.

In conclusion, I believe that abortion is absolutely immoral. However, I do not believe the myth that the roots of this moral malady lie in the actions of irresponsible women who want to have their cake and eat it too. Nor do I believe this malady lies in the black hearts of unscrupulous doctors who "kill babies" without compunction. The true roots of abortion lie in an ignorance and fear of human sexuality, a disregard for the importance of childbearing, and a disregard for the needs of the economically disadvantaged. Where abortion is concerned, only when we are able to change the moral attitudes of many will the immoral actions of a few be stemmed. Only then will the rights of fetal human beings be protected to the fullest.