There is no issue more volatile in today's political climate that that of abortion. Yet, despite myriad opinions and nuances of interpretation, we still find ourselves forced into either two camps: pro-choice or pro-life.

However, with these lines so seemingly defined, we should quickly review; what does it mean to be pro-life or pro-choice?

It is said that those in the pro-life camp believe that the fetus is actually an "unborn" human being who deserves the same rights guaranteed all others under the Constitution.

Activists on the pro-life side characterize doctors who perform abortions as "murderers."

A recent pro-life advertising insert in this paper counted the number of "babies killed" by abortions. The implication is clear.

Pro-choice individuals, on the other hand, believe that before a baby is born, it is not yet an individual. Rather, they see the fetus as part of a biological process that could eventually lead to a human being.

They draw a psychological distinction between human beings and potential human beings. By doing this, they can accept the elimination of a potential human being as a medical procedure.

With the lines drawn thus, we would except political leaders to stand very clearly on one side of the issue or the other.

Pro-life politicians would be expected to draw no distinction between abortion and murder. However, such a line is not found.

Instead, a psychological distinction seems to exist even in the minds of pro-life politicians. Pro0life Oklahoma politicians Steve Largent and J.C. Watts, and presidential candidate Phil Gramm all support abortions "when the life of the mother is endangered."

Does this indicate that the "born" mother is more important than the "unborn" child? If abortion really is murder, how can it be tolerated under any circumstances?

Pro-life Oklahoma politicians Jim Inhofe, Ernest Istook, Frank Lucas, Frank Keating and presidential candidates Dick Lugar and Bob Dole all support abortions "in the case of rape, incest or when the life of the mother is endangered."

Rape is a horrible crime. But what is it about a rape that makes an unborn person less important? If there really is no distinction between unborn and born, then it should be all right to "murder" a baby resulting from rape either before or after the birth.

Incest is not even a crime in some states, yet all of these prominent politicians see it as reason enough to "murder" a baby. Why?

These politicians help to illustrate the magnitude of the distinction almost all people, even pro-life politicians, see between born and unborn.

In fact, the lines between pro-life and pro-choice can become quickly blurred. If I were to oppose abortions except "in the cases when the life of the mother is endangered, rape, incest or when the baby would be born with severe mental retardation," would I be pro-life or pro-choice?

What if I extended my definition to allow abortions when the "mother or family is unable to suitably care for the child?"

By allowing abortions in any circumstance, especially those listed, these politicians, like most pro-lifers, must draw a psychological distinction between born and unborn; they are not the same thing. These politicians are then able to allow abortions when such procedures would help remedy certain difficulties encountered in human civilization (for example, the horrible result of a mother dying from her pregnancy or the traumatizing experience of having a baby that resulted from rape).

So what's the conclusion? Most pro-lifers, as exhibited by these consummate pro-life politicians, do two things: First, they draw a psychological distinction between a human being and a potential human being. Second, they tolerate abortions to help remedy certain difficulties encountered in human civilization.

Ironically, these two steps are the underlying logic of the pro-choice movement.


Marshall Camp is a political science sophomore who enjoys speaking of himself in the third person.

This column was written by Marshall Camp.