The Evolving Political Status of the Unborn Child

By Sherry Tyree

In the July 30, 1999, edition of Chronicle of Higher Education, Peter Monaghan reviewed 13 new books that deal with " the evolving political status of the fetus."

What makes the overview of these books, which were inspired by recent prenatal technological advances, so intriguing is that all were authored not by ardent pro-lifers, but by ardent feminist scholars.

As Monica J. Casper explains in The Making of the Unborn Patient: A Social Anatomy of Fetal Surgery, the fetus has developed a new political and cultural status. This "is proceeding rapidly ahead of careful reflection about what it means and without public debate about its consequences." Ultimately, she argues, that will include a public discussion of "what counts as personhood at the close of the twentieth century."

Ms. Casper was nudged into reflections on personhood in part because she witnessed an in utero operation. She was surprised "at what the fetus looks like." She accounted for her surprise by explaining that she comes from a background of abortion politics.

"[W]e all talk about the fetus, but most of us don't see fetuses unless they're in a jar on the street." Ms. Casper was amazed by how "recognizable" the second-trimester fetus was.

Fetuses for centuries were hidden but generally protected by law. However, in 1973, they became vulnerable to being attacked and killed by members of the world's finest medical community with the blessing of the land's highest court.

But the unborn are no longer "out of sight, out of mind." They are now quite public. Fetal pictures can be regularly found in popular magazines, medical journals, even motion pictures.

This surely creates a dilemma: What do such sophisticated reproductive technologies as ultrasound and 3-D sonograms mean for the abortion controversy? Are abortion ideologues adjusting their creed in the face of the new information made possible by our ability to see inside the womb?

Not these authors. In fact, they dig their heels in even deeper. Ms. Casper and the other writers see the unborn child much the way feminists see men - - as competitors. No covenant relationship here. In Casper's word, "the fetus has become an entity with competing medical, legal, and cultural status."

Conveniently ignoring feminism's support of the sexual revolution and the resulting immodesty of modern woman, Ms. Casper adds that technology "can make women's bodies even less private than they have been."

Her conclusion? She's more supportive of abortion than ever.

Perhaps she agrees with fellow authors Lynn M. Morgan and Meredith W. Michaels. They state in Fetal Subjects, Feminist Positions, "To recuperate the fetus in feminist terms necessarily forces us into dangerous territory." What do they mean?

"If," they write, "as is now the case, increasing social autonomy is granted to the life-within-the-womb, then women's right to abortion must be seen as an instance of the right to kill those things whose invasion of one's life threatens its integrity." It all boils down to what Ms. Michaels calls "the prerogative to kill."

Wow! We're to believe the right to "integrity" - - a conveniently vague word - - supersedes the most basic right of all? And are Ms. Morgan and Ms. Michaels actually unembarrassed to use the terms "life-within-the-womb" and "things" to describe the children they are so willing to slaughter?

The beginning of wisdom, it has been said, is to call " things" by their right names. While pro-abortion feminist scholars may fail this test, the rest of us Americans do not.

Four polls, all taken in 1999, point to a real shift in public opinion. Surely, this is an encouraging sign of honesty and soul-searching that may be due in part to all this technologically aided awareness of the unborn child.

Last January Faye Wattleton's Center for Gender Equality conducted a poll that established (to her chagrin) that American women are less supportive of abortion than ever. Only 28% favored abortion on demand.

The University of California at Los Angeles soon followed with its annual national survey of the attitudes of college freshmen. Support for legal abortion dropped for the sixth straight year. These college-age young people, the group usually most "understanding" of abortion, barely supported it - - 50.9%.

Then there is a brand-new Zogby "American Values" poll. It showed that 52% of respondents said abortion destroys a human life and is manslaughter.

Most striking is this memorable statistic: a recent Gallup survey breaks down to indicate that nearly three out of four American adults support outlawing more than 90% of current American abortions.

This shift in opinion is not merely some abstract set of polling numbers. It can be gauged simply by listening to ordinary people in conversation about abortion, reading letters to the editor, or just by noticing bumper stickers.

Ten years ago most were "pro-choice; now most are pro-life. The occasional pro-abortion sticker is usually yellow with age.

Another gauge, which the "mainstream media" has completely overlooked, is the emergence of a still nascent division within traditionally "pro-choice" communities. Example: Last year 37 prominent, self-identified pro-choice Jewish women organized STOP - - Standing Together to Oppose Partial-Birth Abortion.

Then there is also the emerging pro-life activism within the African-American community.

While polls indicate blacks are generally as pro-life as whites, black women account for nearly one-third of the total number of abortions even though blacks constitute only 12% of the population.

But better days are ahead. Just a couple of weeks ago a group of black pastors from New Jersey marched from Newark to Washington, D.C., on behalf of the 1,452 black children aborted each day in the United States. These pastors were moved to action because of this high abortion rate within the African- American community, approximately twice that of whites.

What does all this tell us? That abortion leaders are on the defensive, protecting extreme positions, unwilling to concede the obvious, and increasingly disconnected from the rest of America.

Given the chance, what might we say to them?

We could begin by echoing these words of C.S. Lewis: "If you are on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; and in that case the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive man. Going back is the quickest way on.

Sherry Tyree is one of the founders of Women for Faith and Family. Started in St. Louis in 1984, it is now an international organization that supports the traditional teachings of the Catholic Church.