Princeton Pro-Life at the March for Life. Courtesy of prolife.princeton.edu
The following is an opinion contribution and reflects the author’s views alone.
Earlier this year, the American Whig-Cliosophic Society hosted a caucus at the Whig Senate Chamber to craft bipartisan abortion rights policies. In more ways than one, the event proved timely. Increasing concerns, especially leading up to and following the recent changes that were made to the Supreme Court, over the future of Roe v. Wade, were showing that the landmark ruling made back in 1973 had never truly settled the abortion debate. In fact, like Americans everywhere today, students on campus still identify themselves as either pro-life or pro-choice. This divisive, political issue called for a peaceable meeting between Princeton’s Pro-Life Club and Women’s Alliance to come together and devise a compromise acceptable to both.
Although the caucus simply simulated what real voting bodies might do to legislate important laws, its discussion-based structure still led participants to deliberate with one another. Both groups not only convened as a large body to take turns proposing policies but also had the opportunity to independently agree on their respective policy positions.
When the time came to present, however, policies from one side were met with objections from the other. These disagreements were not the result of minor particulars. On the contrary, major ideological differences led to the constant creation of incompatible policies. Pro-lifers and pro-choicers were implicitly broaching the question that the effort to reach compromise had been avoiding all evening: when does life begin? More than anything, the caucus was effective in starting a conversation about an issue that is part of an ongoing debate today.
As a participant on the pro-life side, I learned that completely banning a well-established medical practice with backing from all sides of the political spectrum is an unfeasible goal. Instead, ensuring well-liked regulations required that we first imagine the best-case scenario for all life: a world in which human worth is neither defined by one’s circumstances nor one’s expressed capacity for humanness but by one’s intrinsic potential to live life to its fullest. Moreover, it required discerning which features of such a life we were willing to concede and which were non-negotiable to us. Doing this made our policies offer an alternative-to-abortion message rather than an anti-abortion one.
But at its core, the Pro-life Club’s mission, much like the Women’s Alliance’s, demands much more than settling for specific restrictions on abortion. The fight for life is one present at all stages of development. If that is the case, why do we still disagree over the start to life?
Of all the policies proposed, the disagreement over mandatory ultrasound viewings was most illuminating, as it revealed the underlying reasons behind choosing to protect a woman’s right to her body over the rights of the body developing inside her womb. Opponents of the policy refuted by saying that anything outside of traditional doctor-patient services is an infringement of the right to privacy and freedom.
While it is true that there is no medical justification for showing an ultrasound to a woman who has prearranged terminating a pregnancy, perhaps one of the more interesting reasons I heard against the policy is that it is a form of “guilt tripping.” If the start of life is truly arbitrary, how can one feel guilty about ending it, especially after seeing a meaningless ultrasound?
Perhaps pro-choicers are mistaken about the intention behind the policy. The purpose of the medical procedure is not to shame women into making a specific decision but actually to empower them. How can they be expected to make the best decision for their bodies and families if they are not presented with all of the information necessary for understanding the available options and their ramifications? How can they be qualified to make decisions in advance? There still is no medical justification to show an ultrasound for a woman set on terminating a pregnancy, but there certainly is an ethical one. It would be a disservice—a deception—to not show a woman her ultrasound.
In general, the caucus was helpful in opening an important dialogue about opposing ideas. As we continue to address abortion in the real world, however, let us not simply settle for compromises that oftentimes leave little room for tasing other relevant issues. Many of the policies brought up by the pro-life group, for instance, conveyed the impression that pregnancy only concerns women. But what about men? In an age of contraception—an age that separates the pleasures of sex with its procreative responsibilities—are we minimizing the importance of fatherhood?
Compromise is nothing more than a temporary solution, and sometimes it can even be a gateway to further complications. Besides ultrasound viewings, other points of contention during the caucus included figuring out at what point in a pregnancy abortion is permissible and whether to increase research for the viability of children outside the womb. Only a few policies, such as the implementation of safe haven laws, comprehensive sex education in schools, and the approval to abort in special cases of young pregnancy, rape, or medical threats, were unanimously agreed upon right off the bat. We must continue probing our opponents on the reasons upon which they base their convictions so that we address the real source of the abortion dilemma, argue on true premises, and propose effective solutions.
Copyright © 2024 The Princeton Tory. All rights reserved.