Human rights vs. "Personhood"

By Lauren Mendelsohn

Nearly 40 years after the Supreme Court's verdict in Roe v. Wade, the debate over abortion still rages on. Americans are divided by their beliefs into pro-choice and pro-life camps, with those on each side believing they're right and attempting to change policy accordingly.

Undeniably, both human life and the notion of free will are important to our society, so from a conceptual view, both sides of the debate have some merit. To thoroughly evaluate the two factions and their arguments, however, it might help to rephrase the group titles by what nobody wants to call them — "anti-choice" and "anti-life" — and see if either re-characterization holds true.

Obviously, very few people (psychopaths, mainly) are "anti-life." Someone who is pro-choice isn't against the idea of fetuses being born, and would likely not say that abortion, when performed safely and early on, counts as murder.

I myself fall into the pro-choice camp — not because I'm "anti-life" by any means, but because I believe a grown woman who became pregnant through her own actions (intentional or otherwise) has the right to decide what to do with her body, so long as the fetus isn't yet able to survive on its own. Gauging this viability is tricky because advancements in technology enable the new organism to survive outside the "host" earlier and earlier during gestation, which is why many pro-choice Americans favor laws that limit the period when abortions can be performed.

While "anti-life" doesn't aptly describe pro-choice cohorts, for many on the other side of the debate, "anti-choice" isn't an inaccurate description. The "choice" here does not refer to personal choice in general but deals specifically with an individual's sovereignty over her own body. Pro-life advocates might not admit that personal rights of unborn humans rank higher than those of functioning adults, but it's hard to argue with that popular criticism when they discourage using birth control and aim to deny pregnant women the power to change their situation.

Just last week, Mississippi voters rejected a ballot initiative that would have granted "personhood" status to fetuses beginning at fertilization, ultimately giving the unborn organism equal rights as fully developed adults from the moment of conception. Many people thought the amendment would pass given the state's strong conservative, Christian and anti-abortion leanings. Thankfully, however, voters must have realized the negative implications of such a measure. The measure would have made it illegal for a woman to get an abortion in Mississippi and would have challenged the decision in Roe v. Wade that affirmed a woman's constitutional right to an abortion.

The amendment would have applied to all circumstances, whether the mother's health was in danger, if she couldn't support the child or even if the pregnancy was a result of rape. Some other implications of the measure include the risk of pregnant women becoming ill or dying from desperately attained illegal abortions, doctors' hesitancy to perform in vitro fertilization in fear of being held responsible for any embryos that die during the procedure and an increase in the number of young, uneducated or unprepared women forced to start a family.

While the ballot initiative failed in Mississippi, the group behind the measure, Personhood USA, is determined to extend equal rights all the way to the not-yet-conscious human zygote. They have spread their "anti-choice" message, and nine states have already moved to add the measure to the ballot in 2012.

If women don't stand up and defend the right to personal sovereignty the Supreme Court granted, we may soon have to share equal rights with blastocysts.

Lauren Mendelsohn is a junior psychology major. She can be reached at mendelsohn@umdbk.com.


(2011-11-13/DiamondbackOnline)