Abortion is just one of America’s many polarizing issues, but it’s the only one—to my knowledge—that can get you in trouble for just attempting to find middle ground. Every time someone asks whether I’m “pro-choice,” or “pro-life,” I receive an incredulous look when I respond with “neither.” They look at me as if I’m wasting their time.
But perhaps I’m wasting my own. I’ve spent enough time with abortion activists to know it’s a two-party issue. The continuity of human development in the womb makes it difficult to draw the line without resorting to some manner of absolute.
This is why so many anti-abortion activists insist life begins at conception and why some people in the pro-abortion crowd still lament the ban on partial-birth abortions—it’s about consistency. Both positions seem ludicrous out of context but not in the continuity.
This is unfortunate for the people in the middle. For them, the only game in town is drawing a line at a certain point in fetal development, effectively putting an expiration date on abortion rights after so-and-so months of pregnancy. Neither side will have any part in this, though—least of all politicians looking to please their whole constituency. Whenever it’s suggested, said expiration date is always decried as “arbitrary.”
But two weeks ago, the Oklahoma government reached a rare moment of nuance in the abortion debate—it passed the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Act, which prohibits a fetus older than 20 weeks from being aborted. As the unwieldy name suggests, the law is based on scientific evidence showing a fetus is capable of experiencing pain after 20 weeks of development.
Is this law arbitrary?
Scientific research has shed light on human development, so it’s now unusual to hear “pro-choicers” say the fetus isn’t human. Not even during last year’s Justice For All controversy did I hear someone refer to it as “just a clump of cells.” Now the debate rages over the nebulous label of “personhood,” which is open to many interpretations.
I think most people would agree life, as we know it, is best described by appealing to our ability to think and feel. And this is where I think we ought to draw the line: At the onset of sentience.
The Pain-Capable Unborn Child Act is significant for approaching what might be a relevant, non-arbitrary point in fetal development when abortion rights can expire. Conservatives probably see it as just another step towards the total abolition of abortion, but the topic of sentience provides plenty of room for a compromise.
The fetus is human, no question, but at the point when it lacks the capacity to think and feel, can we really ascribe personhood to it? Life is qualified by more than a heartbeat and the ability to breathe.
Parents and guardians in some states are clear to pull the plug if one of their children is comatose, and this actually isn’t so different. It’s impossible to imagine what it’d be like to be unable to think or perceive our environment—not even sleep comes close. To the best of our knowledge, this is what death is like.
If anyone else wants to see compromise in the abortion debate, sentience is probably the best indicator of when a fetus is truly alive, not purely in a biological sense, but a philosophical one. The new legislation isn’t perfect, but it’s valuable for its consideration of the fetus’s development.
— Steven Zoeller, University College freshman
The Oklahoma Daily is pleased to provide you the opportunity to share your thoughts about this article. We encourage lively debate on the issues of the day, but we ask you refrain from using profanity or other offensive speech, engaging in personal attacks or name-calling, posting advertising, or straying from the topic at hand. To comment, you must be a registered user of OUDaily.com. Thanks for taking the time to offer your thoughts.
You must be logged in to leave a comment. Log in | Register
Chirpit 1 year ago
Excellent article, and I completely agree. The Pro-Life vs Pro-Choice war is ridiculous. When I've paused to talk with the JFA group in the past years, I've discovered that nearly all of the people with JFA actually support abortion in instances of rape and if the mother's life is in danger and the child cannot be saved. That is a Pro-Choice element. In all honesty, there are very few people that are 100% one or the other; those positions are simply too extreme. How extreme is that? Well, in my opinion no sane person would say "A woman should be allowed to abort up until she goes into labor" or "No abortions ever, period, not even to save the mother if the child will die either way."
MissPeaSoup 1 year ago
Oh will you lay off, for the love of jeebus?
MissPeaSoup 1 year ago
LET US CUT WIC FUNDING! That fetus don't need to live once it is actually out of the woman, right? AMIRIGHT boys? You tell them welfare queens that you are trying to force to carry their pregnancy to term who is boss! YOU ARE THE BOSS! YOU ARE THE BOSS. Live it, learn it, LOVE IT!
sandra 1 year ago
Boring. Doesn't account for the legal ramifications of defining personhood, i.e. birthing rights and criminalization of miscarriage. Also doesn't account for how this legislation ties in with other abortion-related state legislation (not just here, but all over the country). Sloppy. Do your research.
Eh, but who needs continuity and context when making ethical judgments, amirite?!
Texans531 1 year ago
Fascinating.
Self-pretentious individuals (Cough. Sandra.) believe they have won an argument by making one simple, nitpicking point and using "big" SAT words, while they completely neglect the issue at hand. What's more interesting is that they spew filth out as if they have a chip on their shoulders! Is narcissism or insecurity playing the cards here? I wonder!
Anyways, ignoring that, I must say that was a good article! Keep up the good work!
schm7371 1 year ago
Wow, Texans - your comment makes all kinds of no sense.
Texans531 1 year ago
Because you have no reading comprehensive skills!