By Albert J. Repicci Tuesday, December 5, 1989
Is there anybody left out there who has not yet grown weary of the incessant harangue over the abortion issue; weary of news reporters inciting the public by heralding every proclamation as a pro—life/pro-choice victory or loss; weary of TV cameras flocking to the scenes of demonstrators as though each gathering would disclose the cure for cancer, weary of political opportunists, who, regardless of their personal stand seek out the biggest parade of the week to join as titular leader.
One confusing element in this tragic epic play is that we only have two characters identified, pro-life and pro-choice, and thousands of other characters wandering about the stage straining to define themselves deluded that none but these two roles exist.
If you believe that abortions are permissible in cases of incest, rape or when the mother’s life is in danger, does that make you a liberal-minded pro-lifer of a conservative pro-choicer? If your belief that the circumstances surrounding many abortions exceeds the intent of women’s rights and prompts you to favor some form of regulation, does that constitute alignment with the pro-life or with the pro-choice faction? In actuality we have never managed to completely identify that muddled faction, confused and agonizing, unable to adopt the complete agenda of either pro-life or pro-choice.
It is tragic that at a time in history, around the world, when symbols of devisiveness are crashing to the ground, we here in the cradle of democracy can find no common ground upon which to create a dialogue.
It is confounding why pro-life/pro-choice should remain so polarized even on issues which seem to carry a consensus. Is it possible that sanity has been averted, by that unidentified interloper, the abortion industry it¬self, whose personal interests have taken priority over the welfare of those women whose rights they purport to uphold. Would one not attach a touch of hypocrisy and conflict of interest to the franchiser, who performing a thousand abortions a year exalts itself as defender of women’s rights, yet fervently resists any regulations that would insure her well-being. As pawns in this debacle, men and women alike have been duped into sup¬porting agendas that extend into areas beyond their personal conviction. Have we not all grown weary of the bellicose rhetoric threatening “war” and “hit list” and of being exploited and paraded by those who would create a power base for themselves. In the wake cf this tug of war, women may find their rights intact, but their health in jeopardy.
Legislation has been proposed to extend the right of informed consent to women receiving an abortion thereby insuring a complete understanding of the procedure. As the tobacco industry would most likely have resisted regulations requiring placement of cancer warnings on cigarettes, and likewise the cattle industry relative to fat and cholesterol, so too would the abortion industry seek to deny women legislation that would require disclosure of the physical and emotional risks associated with terminating a pregnancy.
Prudence further would urge that it be mandatory for women to receive the necessary preparatory counseling and be allowed time to assimilate the information and consider the alternatives. How often, in the absence of a caring and guiding hand, do people in despair regrettably tum to seemingly expedient yet self-destructive relief, as is the case in alcohol and drug abuse. Medical ethics requires that viable options be presented to patients, who, in their distress may have limited insight concerning therapeutic alternatives. One could not help but be highly skeptical of an abortion clinic director, who, advocating abortion on demand, insists that counseling alternatives such as adoption are inappropriate and unnecessary. From that same logic would follow that every patient that presents to a rehabilitation clinic for back pain need not be advised of the alternatives to surgery nor need any dental patient be advised of any alternatives to extraction.
‘One confusing element in this tragic epic play is that we only have two characters identified, pro-life and pro-choice, and thousands of other characters wandering about the stage straining to define themselves deluded that none but these two roles exist’
Since all of us either have children or presumably were one ourselves, a special concern for their welfare would seem universal. We have taken such care, with these, our most precious possessions, that for precaution’ sake they are not allowed to take the school bus without parental consent, they don’t play organized sports without parental consent, they do not have dental treatment, open heart surgery or chemo-therapy without parental consent. Yet some mindless faction had determined that parents are unsuitable to be involved in their child’s pregnancy. With family fabric already stretched perilously thin in this country who would drive another wedge between parents and their children, leaving parents uninformed and unprepared to cope with the crises and left helpless to sift through the ashes?
One is even left to wonder whether the unrestricted access to abortions as a birth control alternative by teenagers has not been a prime factor in the skyrocketing incidence of teen pregnancy.
Sexism is a catchword that gets great mileage depending upon what diversion one is trying to create. Since women are the feature players in the abortion epic, it would seem that respect for and propagation of their gender would be a priority on their agendas, yet it leaves one to wonder why, since abortion for sex selection almost invariable singles out the female fetus to be destroyed, has their not been greater resistance to this practice by feminists. Men, the forgotten gender in this whole issue and likewise the object of sexism, as both father and spouse, for the time being, has been rendered impotent concerning the decision to terminate a pregnancy. This does not conclude however, that he is not a casualty of a unilateral decision to abort. Reason beseeches that the father, as spouse, be notified of decisions to abort allowing for critical emotional adjustment but to likewise avoid the tragedy of an inadvertant abortion resulting from misinterpretation or confusion.
And finally what of the fetus itself? There is no doubt that both pro-life and pro-choice advocates share an abiding concern for the unborn child. Whereas some pro-lifers feel their is room to allow for abortions under certain circumstances there is likewise a considerable pro-choice faction who would restrict abortions to the first trimester and more yet would prohibit abortion after viablility or the 24th week of pregnancy.
With so much upon which to build, inflammatory charges of extremism from both sides of the issue have been counterproductive. As an independent and clear thinking people, unencumbered by a press that thrives on fueling and perpetuating devisiveness, free of self-serving financial interests which would rob us of our intellect, and unburdened by the politically ambitious who live by the polls, we must look beyond the banners we have so dutifully supported and beyond the harsh and rabid oratory that is tearing us apart and beyond the packaged cliches which blur our vision. It is only then that both sanity and humanity may prevail.
Albert J. Repicci. a Greenwich resident, is an orthodontist.