4

Thursday, June 6, 2019
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
OPINION

420 Maynard St. 
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
 tothedaily@michigandaily.com

Edited and managed by students at 
the University of Michigan since 1890.

 ERIN WHITE
Editorial Page Editor

Zack Blumberg
Emma Chang
Joel Danilewitz
Emily Huhman
Tara Jayaram

Jeremy Kaplan
Magdalena Mihaylova
Ellery Rosenzweig
Jason Rowland
Anu Roy-Chaudhury

Alex Satola
Timothy Spurlin
Nicholas Tomaino
Erin White 
Ashley Zhang

Unsigned editorials reflect the official position of the Daily’s Editorial Board. 
All other signed articles and illustrations represent solely the views of their authors.

CASSANDRA MANSUETTI
Editor in Chief

EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS

RAMISA ROB | OP-ED
A 

common post revolving 
around the internet right 
now 
that 
condemns 
the near total abortion ban in 
Alabama states, “Men shouldn’t 
be making laws about women’s 
bodies” has been flying around 
the internet recently. But the 
deadlocked 
abortion 
debate 
is much more complex than 
old, white men versus women 
when it results in a concerted, 
national 
effort 
to 
get 
the 
Supreme Court to overturn Roe 
v. Wade. Missouri also recently 
established anti-abortion laws, 
and female state Sen. Kim 
LaSata, 
R-Sturgis 
proposed 
abortion bans in her state and 
heartlessly 
said 
abortions 
“should be painful.”
Governor 
of 
Alabama 
Kay 
Ivey, 
also 
a 
woman, 
signed Alabama’s bill citing 
Alabamians’ deeply held belief 
that every life is precious and 
that every life is a sacred gift 
from God.” Pew finds that the 
gender 
difference 
between 
those for and against abortion is 
trivial. To then say the pro-life 
movement is indicative of men 
pushing opinions on women 
would 
prove 
unproductive. 
Instead, “God” seems to be the 
point of focus for most pro-life 
campaigns. But it is ridiculous 
that such abortion bans can be 
passed by a majority of senators 
in a nation that has a ‘free 
exercise clause’ enshrined in 
its constitution, fundamentally 
prohibiting Congress and states 
from furthering or deterring 

religious beliefs or practices.
The juxtaposition between 
anti-abortion state laws and the 
First Amendment produces a 
self-contradictory legal system. 
However, the abortion state 
laws are not yet in effect, and 
will likely reach the Supreme 
Court, where Brett Kavanaugh 
will get a chance to prove his 
competence 
in 
safeguarding 
inclusive justice. Regardless, 
American 
society 
needs 
to 
engage 
in 
a 
constructive 
conversation about abortion.
Conservative pundits are fond 
of saying “Facts don’t care about 
your feelings.” It seems that 
they presume exemption from 
their own statement. Pro-life 
conservatives ignore a number 
of scientific facts because, in 
reality, they “view” and “feel” 
that 
abortion 
constitutes 
murder. The assertion that a 
two-week-old fetus amounts to 
the same humanness of a full 
grown baby is contradicted” by 
medical evidence that suggests 
fetuses cannot live unsupported 
without a respirator, even at 21 
weeks. Pro-life campaigns argue 
fetuses can feel pain, although 
scientific evidence tells us that, 
until at least 24 weeks, fetuses 
cannot 
feel 
anything 
like 
pain. With the lack of science, 
banking on a strict perception of 
morality to criminalize abortion 
casts infeasible restrictions on 
fertile women, especially rape 
victims, and ironically becomes 
unjust and immoral.
The solution is actually quite 

simple: If you don’t support 
abortions, don’t have one. You 
don’t have to dig your fingers 
into strangers’ lives and provide 
unsolicited 
virtue 
signaling. 
Considerations of what should 
be criminalized by law must be 
logically based on human rights, 
economic standards and ethical 
or 
unethical 
conduct 
that 
endangers or ensures public 
safety. You can be a Christian, 
Muslim, 
Jew, 
Buddhist 
or 
Scientologist, but your religion 
shouldn’t 
matter 
when 
it 
comes 
to 
your 
“advocacy” 
pertaining 
to 
policies 
and 
politics. That only makes sense 
if your nation ratifies religious 
jurisdiction, 
but 
the 
U.S. 
Constitution explicitly does not. 
So, I challenge conservatives 
to 
explain 
why 
abortion 
should 
be 
banned 
without 
unconstitutionally bringing God 
into the conversation.
When 
navigating 
through 
what has today become the dead-
end abortion debate, we must 
highlight that pro-choice means 
you can choose to and choose 
not to have an abortion. Pro-
choice not only aims to protect 
those who choose abortion, but 
also those who do not, while 
pro-life attacks the choice of 
those who have abortions. I 
understand that many women 
hold religious convictions and 
will 
not 
pursue 
abortions. 
What I cannot respect is when 
individuals disparage women 
who have had abortions for very 
personal, complex reasons only 

to validate their anti-abortion 
viewpoints.
Though abortion affects a 
woman’s 
body, 
reproductive 
rights concern both sexes. But 
the fact is that men can easily 
escape the responsibility of 
being involved in a pregnancy or 
raising a child, as the law does 
nothing to ethically counter 
that. Many single mothers raise 
children 
through 
financial 
challenges, 
and 
oftentimes 
children end up in foster homes. 
And I’m sure many rapists 
would not like to raise children. 
So if the law forces a 11-year-
old rape victim to deliver a 
child, a fair bill should also be 
passed that requires rapists 
to finance and account for the 
entire pregnancy, along with 
their prison sentence. If nothing 
is done in that regard, we are 
legalizing vile misogyny.
A rapist can now face a lesser 
sentence than a doctor who 
performs an abortion on a rape 
victim, a woman who became 
pregnant without her consent. 
No 
one 
should 
inhumanely 
force 
victims 
to 
physically 
carry what happened to them 
against their will. So, to those 
diehard pro-life advocates who 
believe they’re doing the right 
thing with these laws that 
marginalize vulnerable people, 
it’s time to refresh those ethics 
lessons.
Pennsylvania 
Rep. 
Tim 
Murphy has been “pro-life,” and 
recently resigned after reports 
found that he had asked his 

extra-marital partner to get an 
abortion, highlighting a clear 
hypocrisy. The tragedy here 
is that abortion has become a 
partisan issue — a denominator 
in the clash of the liberals and 
conservatives — which, in this 
case, seems to mean abandoning 
the sense of logic and morality 
to fit oneself into a political 
tribe. Maybe I’m wrong, but 
where’s the logical consistency 
for conservatives who are pro-
life, pro-death penalty and pro-
gun?
Pope Francis himself has 
recently 
argued 
the 
death 
penalty is a violation of the 
right of life. How can Alabama 
be pro-murder and anti-murder 
at the same time? Shooting 
incidents 
have 
been 
killing 
youths across the nation for 
decades, 
and 
teenagers 
are 
arguably “more living” than 
fetuses. Yet, lawmakers cannot 
implement 
common-sense 
gun laws because Americans 
need to bear arms for “self-
defense.” How many people 
have used guns for self-defense 
and 
how 
many 
have 
used 
them to murder innocents? 
I challenge conservatives to 
straightforwardly explain the 
contradictions 
with 
“facts.” 
It’s time for conservatives to 
answer these questions and to 
apply their logic and humanity 
to the abortion debate.

Ramisa Rob is a 2019 graduate of the 

University of Michigan

Considerations for pro-life conservatives

Illustrator / Ramisa Rob

