An article in the Washington Post On Faith section in response to their question: John McCain and Sarah Palin say it's time to overturn Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion. Do you agree? What is the right moral choice?
As I remember it, abortion started out as a white-hat issue on almost every front. Before 1973 we were confronted with young women who were victims of guilt and ostracism. Unwanted pregnancies were more shameful back then, because "Illegitimate" was a powerful stigma to attach to a baby. Doctors were forbidden to help without stepping outside the law. By legalizing abortions, shady practices ended and secrets no longer had to be kept so tightly. (The issue of euthanasia is today's moral equivalent -- terminal patients are made to suffer because of someone else's moral strictures, and as a result the doctors who aid them have compassion on their side but the law against them.) With Roe v. Wade on the books, however, it turned out that abortion was a black-hat issue for Catholics and right-wing fundamentalists. For them, there could be no compromise when it comes to a mortal sin.
But there never was any color except gray when you clear political animosity away. Every stand on the abortion issue leads to "Yes, but."
-- A woman has a right to say what happens to her body. Yes, but shouldn't the father of the child be given serious consideration?
-- A fetus is an unborn human being. Yes, but nobody knows when, if, or how a single fertilized cell becomes human, still less can anyone say when, if, of how the soul enters the body.
-- To many devout believers, abortion is a sin. Yes, but do they have a right to impose their concept of sin on society as a whole?
-- Abortion is generally a minor procedure with few dangers to the mother. Yes, but many young women therefore use it frivolously, as an alternative form of birth control.
-- The state has the right to police medical procedures, including abortion. Yes, but the state has limited rights to police personal morality.
However many shades of gray you want to see, the bottom line is that gray is the only color there is. At this point Roe v. Wade is rather like the plight of the Palestinians. Keeping the argument inflamed has more political value than solving it. Reversing Roe v. Wade would probably be neither a victory nor a defeat for either side. The issue would be turned over to each individual state, and there will always be a tolerant state (e.g., Massachusetts) or a liberal country (e.g., Canada) or a pill you can order online for women who want to terminate a pregnancy. If she is too poor to afford these recourses, there will no doubt be funds available through pro-choice groups.
In the end, I find myself trapped by moral absolutists who have distorted a sensitive issue. As a matter of principle, I side with the pro-choice side, as most physicians do unless their view is colored by religion. I'd rather live in a country where things are allowed unless expressly forbidden, not one where things are forbidden unless somebody expressly allows them. But that doesn't mean I'm putting on a white hat. There are no white hats in this issue.
Visit www.intent.com to read more from Deepak Chopra and other prominent voices.
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/deepak_chopra/
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
