Abortion  
     This has been an unresolved, burning issue for over 100
years.  At what point does the state have the right to regulate
an individual woman's decision to terminate a pregnancy?  The
"Pro-Life" faction feels that the state is obligated to support
and enforce the rights of the unborn child from the day of
conception.  This is without regard to the circumstances
surrounding the conception, such as incest or rape, and also
without regard to the physical and/or mental condition of the
unborn child, such as known conditions which will adversely
affect the length or quality of life.  The "Pro-Choice" side
believes that a woman retains certain undeniable rights regarding
the continuation of the pregnancy involving an unborn fetus until
that fetus is viable, that is, has the ability to sustain life
outside the womb.  In 1972, the Supreme Court decided, in Roe vs
Wade, that "a right of privacy" existed that was "broad enough to
encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her
pregnancy".  The theory is traceable to the 14th Amendment, which
prohibited states from denying "liberty" to anyone without "due
process".  The state could, however, regulate the privacy rights
of the mother in order to balance the interests of the woman and
the fetus.  This regulation would be somewhat timed to the
medical definition of the different trimesters of a pregnancy. 
During the first trimester a woman retains the right to make a
decision, with her physician, as to whether to abort the
pregnancy or not.  During the second trimester, the decision to
have an abortion required some form of higher level approval. 
During the third trimester, or after the fetus was considered
viable, the state could prohibit abortion, in order to protect
the unborn child, except where such an abortion was necessary to
preserve the mother's life or health.  
     Roe vs Wade has come under attack since it's inception. 
Several cases have come before the Supreme Court which have
narrowed the scope of the decision, or caused some specific
situation to be upheld or overturned in spite of or because of
Roe.  The only thing that is clear is that Roe vs Wade did not
solve the problem of abortion in this country.  The eventual
demise of Roe vs Wade is really not a question, the true problem
is what will the law be at the time Roe vs Wade may be
overturned?  Will abortion in any form be illegal?  Will each
state have the right to formulate its own regulations?  Or will
it be simply a medical decision?
     From a social standpoint, abortion is certainly not to be
encouraged as a birth-control method.  At the same time, however,
does the state have the right to force a woman to bring a child
to term and to go through child birth when the child is the
result of rape or incest?  And if the state requires this child
to be brought into the world, is the state willing to support
this child until it is able to support itself?  For that matter,
is the state willing to support a child that is severely
handicapped (either physically or mentally) if the natural
parents are not able to do this, but were not allowed to abort
the pregnancy even though they knew of the condition of the fetus
early on?
     Does this not then become an economic issue (as do most of
the important issues in life)?  If the government is to create a
situation whereby any abortion is illegal, or where most
abortions are illegal, then those people seeking abortions will
become criminals.  But the fact is that they will continue to
seek abortions.  Those persons who perform abortions will also be
criminals, but they will continue to perform abortions. 
Consequently, those people who do not have the financial means to
travel to a country where abortion is legal will have to seek out
criminals to perform an illegal act at great expense and risk of
life.  I would suspect that the Pro-Life advocate would say that
this is a good situation because the number of abortions
performed in this country would decline dramatically.  I am not
sure that this is true.  There will certainly be a dramatic
decline in legal abortions performed under sterile conditions in
an appropriate facility, but I would suspect that the number of
abortions performed outside of this country on willing citizens
and the number of illegally performed abortions or illegal self
abortions would be very much equal to the number of legal
abortions that might have been performed previously.  I am afraid
that we will have an increase in the number of abortion related
deaths, and an increase in the number of criminals who are
walking around because the police are unable to arrest and
prosecute those individuals participating in the violation of
those laws.  
     The laws of nature are pretty severe.  If an animal gives
birth to a deformed or disabled offspring, it is usually left to
die.  If by chance it is able to survive, it normally will lead a
very lonely but brief life as it will not be accepted into the
animal family.  And yes, human life form is a step above our
animal cousins.  We are thinking, reasoning, caring creatures who
take care of the elderly and infirm.  We live under a code of law
and we make choices based on a much higher degree of sensibility
than that of the animal world.  And yet, instead of entering into
an intelligent discourse and then abiding by the will of the
majority, we have groups of radical anti-abortionists who think
it is right and proper to indiscriminately bomb offices and
clinics where abortions are being performed, without regard to
any harm that may befall anyone foolish enough to be in that
facility.  They have little or no regard for life or property,
but they have a cause that is more important than that.  
     Abortion is, unfortunately, not going to go away.  Our
society is far better off recognizing this and providing the
proper counseling and medical assistance to cope with the problem
rather than creating new laws that cannot be enforced and making
criminals out of otherwise normal, well-meaning citizens. 
=======================================================================
Below is a letter I wrote to a Cleveland Plain Dealer columnist 
after a series of Pro-Life articles.

I have read with interest your recent columns regarding Roe v Wade 
and the continuing struggle to deal with the issues that are fostered 
by that decision.  I have also read Connie Schultz on the same topic.  
I have held back any response until it had appeared that you had 
finished writing about your position and how you came to arrive at 
that point.  I get the impression that you are very much a Pro-Life 
advocate.  

I have done a great deal of study on this and many other topics that 
are of interest to adults in our world.  As I got older I felt that 
I should have a better understanding of what is going on.  The issues 
that we face today are not very much different that those that were 
faced by our grand parents and their grandparents.  We just have much 
better communications and our access to information is better by one 
hundred fold.  

What bothers me is the all or nothing approach that seems to divide 
the mob mentality that swirls around the abortion issue.  If you are 
not Pro-Life, by definition you are a "baby killer", a "monster", or 
worse 'Satan".  And the pro-life faction feels so strongly about this 
that they will blow up a clinic that performs abortions without regard 
to any other life that might be involved.  

Could we not formulate a better approach?  Could we not be against 
abortion for the sake of birth control and yet still take a reasonable 
stance where other considerations are manifest?  

Let's look at a couple of normal situations and see how we are affected:

1)  A woman finds out early in her pregnancy that her life will be in 
danger if she allows the pregnancy to continue to full term.  Let's say 
that she has a husband and two other children.  Let's also say that the 
doctors can determine that the unborn child is at great risk of being 
brain damaged and/or terribly deformed.  Under a strict "pro-life" 
approach, backed by law and regulation, she has no choice but to place 
her family and herself in jeopardy - is that fair to the greater good 
of the majority of her family?

2)  A woman of modest means finds out early on that her unborn child 
will be permanently damaged and will require constant care for his or 
her entire life.  The government, which restricts her right to terminate 
this pregnancy, is limited in the amount of support that it can provide 
and as a result, she and her husband cannot afford to have any other 
children or for that matter, have a normal life.  

In either case, abortion is not a 'birth control' choice, it is a medical, 
ethical, and responsible alternative to what could otherwise be a social 
and economical disaster for the other people involved in the family.  

And certainly, given the right to choose, there will be parents that will 
choose to either continue the pregnancy or to terminate that pregnancy.  
And the parents will have to live by and with the decision, in the same way 
that they have to live with many other decisions that are made during their 
lives.

And if we, as a government, recognize that there are situations that 
require personal choices to be made for the greater good of the population, 
then we have to recognize that there will be people who will stretch the 
right to make those choices as far as possible.  That is the cost of having 
a free society.  There will be abuses.  Hopefully our health professionals 
will have the moral and ethical training to assist those people who need 
assistance and reduce the number of abuses that take place.  

But keep in mind that the people who will be hurt by the modification of 
Roe v Wade will be the poor people of this country.  If the wealthy need 
to have an abortion for whatever reason they decide is acceptable to them, 
they will travel to a country where the procedure is legal and they will 
have it done there.  The poor people of our country will become criminals 
for seeking illegal procedures under less than perfect conditions.

This entire issue is truly not a pro-life/pro-choice issue.  It is the basis 
on which our democracy was founded.  Our citizens must be seen as capable of 
determining what is best for the greater number of their family, in 
conjunction with their health professional, without having the government 
causing them to be criminals in the process.  And yes, many of our citizens 
are not able to make an intelligent choice.  That is a fact - but it is a 
fact that we must accept and we must continue to try to educate and assist 
those among us who fall into that category.  It is the only way to maintain 
our freedom and our ability for self determination.  What is good and right 
for you or me is not necessarily what is good and right for everybody.  But 
the greatest portion of our population just doesn't see it that way - and 
therein lies the problem.
======================================================================