In a study done by TV Free America, the average American watches about seven hours of television each day. I am one of these people and as such, I consider myself a devout consumer of media in this time of televised inundation. As I willingly listen to an anchorman reporting what transpired throughout the course of the day, I hear conflicted views on what is “right” and “wrong” played out on the 6:00 news. I seek certainty on this stage of relative ever-amended opinion and, with this desire, I create a half-truthed amalgam that constitutes, for me, truth, from world news. With this amalgam, the question of individual rights, even though codified, is oftentimes still debated.

With every print of 'USA Today' and every airing of 'The O'Reilly Factor,' we, citizens of an American democracy, are becoming more and more subjugated to this flooding of media and opinion. These sort of periodicals and political talk shows provide perspective from credible journalists and politicians who simply seek to share their supportive or dissenting opinions on various issues concerning society. In a survey compiled by Nielsen Media Research, it was estimated that over 43 million Americans listened to President Bush's State of the Union address in 2004. With such an opportunity to be heard, the president has the uncanny ability to share his views with the American people. One of these views gives attention to the question of whether or not to outlaw abortions. At one point during the course of this years second presidential debate between President Bush and Senator Kerry, Sarah Degenhart asked both candidates if they would provide tax dollars in support of abortion. Bush replied succintly, " My answer is, we‘re not going to spend taxpayers‘ money on abortion,"  while Kerry followed up by saying that "you have to afford people their constitutional rights," as he felt obliged to provide the neccessary money in support of abortions. These views are debated as “right” or “wrong” by the political talk show hosts every night on channels like CNN or C-SPAN.

"Right" or "wrong," the outcome of the argument was first initiated when a woman named Norma McCorvey, who went by the alias of Jane Roe, challenged the original abortion law in the state of Texas, which stated that abortions were criminal and should not be executed unless the mother's life is in danger, by claiming that the Fourteenth Amendment to the constitution protected the mothers residual right to privacy. A verdict legally resolved the issue on January 22, 1973 when Chief Justice Harry Blackmun legalized abortion during the entire pregnancy in all fifty states by passing the Roe vs. Wade supreme court case. This may have legally resolved the issue, but it did not end the controversy, as we can see every year on the anniversary of the decision when hundreds of thousands of pro-life advocates protest the legalization at the nation's capital. However, according to Boston Globe reporter Farah Stockman, "A group of young people in Boston College T-shirts chanted slogans in favor of abortion, standing near signs that read 'Catholics for Choice'" at the same event. Supporter or dissenter, these people have been voicing their opinions for over thirty years; what will it take for the controversy to come to a conclusion? Through these attempts by both sides to convince the rest of American society to see what they are seeing, no encompassing effects have totally been achieved as still, every January, these re-occurring crowds show up to protest either side's perspective on Capitol Hill. Should this common ground one day be established will we, as this American society, then be able to embark on bringing an end to the conflict.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Proponents for either side may assume that they are in direct conflict with the opposing group, but in reality both pro-life and pro-choice advocates already share beliefs on this aforementioned common ground. The way I see it is that both sides are fighting for individual rights. Their views of what exactly an individual is may differ in the sense that pro-lifers believe life begins at conception while pro-choicers believe that life begins much later in the course of pregnancy, but the basis for both arguments concerns the rights that one, possibly a fetus, should be granted. Those in favor of abortions argue for the acknowledgement of the womans individual rights so she can choose to do whatever she desires regarding the state of her pregnancy and that, in this democracy we live in, every person can do whatever s/he desires to do to his/her own body without being found guilty of anything due in part to the installment of the Fourteenth Amendment. Those against abortions argue that these rights also unconditionally apply to the fetus or baby as well, and that these must be respected. Pinning these beliefs against one another is a refusal to stay on common ground, and by strictly enforcing one perspective over the other as the government did back in 1973, bad things happen; or in Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s words, a "negative peace" is created. On March 10 th , 1993, a doctor was shot outside of his abortion clinic by a pro-life fanatic. Both sides can fire back at each other all they want but neither side will be content until the unforeseeable truth is reached that is unanimously sufficient for both.

Knowing the facts and hearing the real-life testimonies given by people both for and against abortion can help provide insight in order for one to stage an effective opinion on this issue . However, it still leaves one question unanswered; why do women of American society get pregnant if they don't desire to in the first place?