No conception equals no abortion

By David Conard

What can I say about abortion that hasn’t already been said?

What Harriet Miers, President Bush’s Supreme Court nominee, thinks of abortion is the real issue.

No doubt, both pro-life and pro-choice advocates paid close attention to an Oct. 19 Chicago Sun-Times article, which stated, “[Miers] pledged unflagging opposition to abortion as a candidate for the Dallas City Council in 1989. She backed a constitutional amendment to ban the procedure in most cases and promised to appear at ‘pro-life rallies and special events.’”

Since Bush is against abortion, I think it’s clear he’s picking one of his partisans for the court. What is not clear is what Miers, the Supreme Court or America should do about the abortion issue.

Consider one book, “The Ethics of Abortion,” a collection of essays on the subject. In one essay, Richard Selzer explains his horror in seeing abortion performed.

Selzer explains the justification for abortion. How it’s not really a life. How a woman has a right to choose. But he writes, “And yet, there is the flick of that needle. I saw it. I saw… I felt – in that room, a pace away, life prodded, life fending off. I saw life avulsed – swept by the flood, blackening – then out.”

The book also has a Feb. 19, 1992, New York Times editorial written by Anna Quindlen. In it Quindlen explains the case of a 14-year-old Irish girl, who said she was raped and impregnated by a friend’s father. Her parents told the authorities. Since Ireland forbids abortion, they wouldn’t allow one. The girl said she wanted to kill herself.

Quindlen continued, “It is a great mistake to believe that if abortion is illegal, it will be non-existent. Ireland has the most restrictive abortion laws, and still several thousand of its citizens travel elsewhere to end their pregnancies each year.”

Both fetus and raped girl suffer. To stop the horror, humanity must find better solutions. We must transcend this difficulty, if at all possible.

I have a few modest suggestions. Of course, these should be reviewed by a bunch of folks with M.D. or Ph.D. after their names.

First, to prevent abortions because of rape, let’s instruct women in the finer points of self-defense, starting in elementary school. Teach them to fight back effectively. Teach them the thumb-in-the-eye and the knee-in-the-groin. Show them how to use mace and how to avoid danger: dark parking lots or drug-laden drinks. No more rapes, no more conception because of them.

Second, do a better job with sex education in school. Teaching abstinence is the easiest way of preventing pregnancy, but also recognize this: Unless you plan to weld chastity belts on all teenagers, many will have sex. So also teach about birth control pills.

These pills normally work by preventing ovulation, according to the Planned Parenthood Web site. It also states with normal use, only eight out of 100 women will become pregnant. With perfect use, the statistic is less than one out of 100. With condom use, that should be even lower. Again, no conception, no problem.

If that doesn’t work, a woman can use Plan B. That’s literally the name of an emergency contraceptive. A December 17, 2003 CNN article said it reduces the chance of pregnancy 89 percent if taken within 72 hours of sex.

CNN states, “Plan B works several ways. It can affect the transport of sperm or eggs in the fallopian tube, preventing fertilization. It can block the surge of hormones that cause ovulation, and it also thickens the mucus in the uterus and changes the uterine lining, making it an inhospitable environment for a fertilized egg to implant.”

Two out of three of those prevent conception. The third option may bother the pro-life advocates. However, I think it is a worthwhile first step. Maybe we can get a product that only prevents conception.

If all else fails, an abortion may be performed. If society will not tolerate that, society must provide decent homes for the children that result. Empty rhetoric doesn’t feed children.

It’s not about Supreme Court justices or whether Rowe v. Wade is correct. It’s about a more humane world.

Columns reflect the opinion of the author and not necessarily that of the Northern Star staff.