We recently passed another anniversary of the 1970s Roe vs. Wade ruling that legalized abortion, the first anniversary since the decision was overturned by the Supreme Court.

The 2022 decision brought the abortion issue to the forefront, leading people on both sides to participate in demonstrations. The pro-life movement emphasized the need to save unborn lives. The pro-choice advocates protested about women losing the right to reproductive choice.

The issue is far from settled. We now have a situation where the 50 states could have 50 different sets of abortion laws.

There’s a likelihood for many legal challenges, many hours and a great deal of money spent on court cases that might eventually require new Supreme Court precedents.

There are two fundamental abortion-related questions for which society still doesn’t have an answer. The first is scientific, while the second calls for a moral rationale.

The scientific question revolves around when life begins. We know that it begins before birth. The issue at hand is whether it begins at the moment of conception, the point when doctors can detect a fetal heartbeat, or the point when an unborn child is capable of living outside the womb.

If someone wants to be 100 percent pro-life, they have to go with the moment of conception. Even taking a morning after pill has to be considered an example of murder.

I personally believe that the life cycle should not be interrupted even in its earliest stages. The pro-choice side, however, makes a case for the idea that in the first several weeks of pregnancy we just have a cluster of cells, that we don’t have a human form and therefore don’t have a person.

They say that morning after pills are almost the same thing as birth control. It’s a moral judgment. It might too debatable to legislate.

I’m far more convinced when there’s a heartbeat. I think it’s wrong to stop a human heart. It makes me think of Edgar Allen Poe’s classic short story “The Tell Tale Heart”, in which the main character is haunted to the point that he confesses to a murder. I’d be haunted if I condoned stopping a heart.

Any individual with a heartbeat deserves protection under the law. The right to continue living should take precedence at that point over the right for people to do what they want with their bodies.

There are other things we can’t do with our bodies. It’s illegal to assault someone. It’s illegal for people to sell their bodies as prostitutes. There are always limits.

The second question, which is altogether moral, is whether or not someone can be both pro-choice and pro-life. The absolute pro-life position is that it’s not possible, that someone who doesn’t favor protecting life from the moment of conception is actually pro-choice.

The other side counters that it’s possible to be both. They’d say it’s possible if someone thinks abortion should be a last resort rather than a first resort.

I’d like to think the pro-choice side is right about being both. Even if someone is willing to allow abortion, they should at least want a guarantee for an informed choice. They should want the expectant mothers to have complete information about services available to them, laws that govern child support, and the abundance of people who want to adopt children.

I don’t know of anyone who considers abortion a truly good thing. No reasonable person believes that everyone who has an unplanned pregnancy should get an abortion.

Millions of women have chosen life in the past 50 years since abortion became legal. They made a courageous choice. They made a very unselfish choice.

Those who kept their babies or who became part of open adoptions are being rewarded. Many of them now have grandchildren from the sons and daughters who were unplanned. A few might already have great grandchildren.

If there’s one thing everyone should agree about, it’s the need to be supportive of the expectant mothers. They’re faced with difficult situations. They have to make a decision that will have lifelong implications.

Support from family members and people in local communities can go a long way toward turning crisis situations into good things. Hopefully much of the money that seems destined to be spent on court battles and election campaigns can instead be used to help the women in need.

— Jim Muchlinski is a longtime reporter and contributor to the Marshall Independent