For more than 30 years, the intensely emotional debate over abortion has raged in our country with little progress toward a resolution. Arguments on both sides have been based on these intense emotions. While these justifications are important because we are emotional creatures, for the debate to proceed, we must consider rational arguments as well.

Let us first begin by considering the foundational beliefs of both sides. The anti-abortion side is mainly concerned with the dignity of the unborn fetus and pregnant woman. They consider the unborn to be a human person who deserve all protections under the law that would be given to any other being. Another concern lies with the physical and emotional harm that abortion causes many women.

The abortion rights camp is concerned with the dignity of women as well. It believes women should be able to make their own decisions and receive adequate health care. Advocates don’t want to see oppressive laws put into place that would limit a woman’s freedom and treat them as second-class citizens.

It seems both sides agree on a very important point, the dignity of the human person. However, there has been much debate about whether an unborn child is actually a person. Once when asked, then-Senator Barack Obama responded that he was not sure. It seems to me this would warrant caution more than anything else.

Further, the justification for partial birth abortions has always confused me. Somehow, because part of the child is still in the mother’s womb, the baby is not worthy of protection. If the baby moved a few more inches out of the womb, the doctor would have to do everything in his power to save the child’s life.

This seems to be a legal loophole. A few inches cannot be the defining line for equal protection. The Freedom of Choice Act will define that line in legalizing partial birth abortions.

This brings up the very important question of when the unborn are worthy of protection. It seems that many have put arbitrary times forward for this, from the moment of birth to a particular trimester. However, these seem to be just that, arbitrary – especially since in some states if a pregnant woman is murdered, the assailant is charged with two murders.

Also, it seems strange that FOCA offers no age restrictions for abortions and in fact, would strike down any such restriction preventing a woman from getting an abortion. Therefore, a minor cannot give blood to save a life without parental consent, but she can get an abortion to end one by herself.

The dignity of the mother and child can come into contension in many cases. One of the most traumatic situations is when a woman becomes pregnant after being raped. We must remember that the dignity of a child is not affected by his or her origins. We can respect both mother and child by giving all the emotional and physical support they need. Adding the physical and emotional trauma of an abortion only will further hurt the woman.

Obama recently repealed an order prohibiting federal funds from supporting organizations that help provide abortions internationally. Now our taxpayer dollars can be spent spreading our abortion culture around the world. Talk about cultural imperialism. However, he has also acknowledged the human dignity of the prisoners at Guantanamo by changing our nation’s torture policies and closing the prison. I hope he will also acknowledge the dignity of the unborn and the dangers of FOCA by vetoing it if and when it reaches his desk.