OWL-sponsored debate tackles abortion controversy

Pro-choice attorney Kathryn Kolbert and Pro-life advocate Mary Hallen FioRito shed light on both sides of the abortion issue in the February 13 debate

by Rebecca Johnson ’03

Does abortion hurt or help the women who have it performed?  This was one of the many questions addressed on Tuesday, February 13 when OWL sponsored a debate on abortion between two of the subject’s most outspoken women. Mary Hallen FioRito, Vice Chancellor for the Roman Catholic Archdioceses of Chicago and Kathryn Kolbert, “One of the 100 Most Influential Lawyers in America,” argued the various aspects of the issue for over an hour, including the recent approval of the aborion pill RU486, and answering audience questions and presenting their opinions during the event, moderated by OWL Treasurer Josephine Decker.

FioRito’s main points against abortion were based in the scientific idea that life begins with conception. According to this argument, abortion is construed as the indisputable taking of a human life— essentially murder.  To support this argument, she argued that the precedent had been set in cases involving the homicide of pregnant women, whereby both the woman and her fetus were counted as victims. Because the fetus was given the legal status of murder victim, and consequently, the charge against the murderer would be a double murder, FioRito conjectured that a fetus had the legal rights of any person. 

She went on to cite medical textbooks that describe the moment of conception as the origin of life. She also referenced the civil rights argument that it is wrong to discriminate on the basis of size; that the fetus is an equal person and should be given equal rights to life. FioRito likened this to the cases of discrimination on the basis of race or sex. She argued that the aborted fetus has been killed based on discrimination against its position of dependence on the mother.

principles of equality for people of all genders and positions in life. FioRito argued that by violating this principle, the entire women’s movement was compromised. Pregnant at the time of the debate, she also said that legalized abortion asserts the notion that pregnancy is bad, and that women have inferior bodies. This, she suggested, contributes to a negative attitude toward women and childbearing in general.

Kolbert, who has been part of the legal team arguing the cases before the Supreme Court on abortion for the past 22 years, countered that the acquisition and retention of abortion rights spoke to core values of the women’s movement and to basic principles of equality.  She stated that the right to abort must be protected as part of a woman’s fundamental rights to control her own life and to make her own decisions. According to Kolbert, this right must include the right to continue or to terminate a pregnancy.

Kolbert mentioned the right of bodily integrity. She described this as the right of a woman to both control what happens to her body, and to make informed decisions regarding it. It also pertains to the right of women to obtain adequate and reputable medical care when needed, a liberty not available to women seeking abortions prior to the landmark Supreme Court decision of Roe v. Wade, the outcome of which legalized abortion in the U.S.

Kolbert stressed the right of women to participate equally in society. In order to participate equally, she argued, a woman must be able to make a decision about her life in the same manner that a man is afforded. According to Kolbert, this equality can only be achieved when the choice to abort an unwanted pregnancy is available. She feels that this equality is necessary for women, in order to “be on the same playing field with men” in the arenas of sex, family planning and career choices, among others. 

In her closing remarks, Kolbert read a personal account of a woman who, after becoming pregnant by a rapist, had felt forced to undergo an illegal abortion after being denied by two legitimate practitioners. The haunting account, according to Kolbert, illustrated the horror inflicted upon this woman by a “back-alley” abortionist and served as Kolbert’s final illustration of the consequences of re-criminalizing abortion.