(This essay also appeared as an op-ed piece in The Oregonian, January 22, 1998.)

The Roe v. Wade decision decreed that no regulation of abortion for the protection of fetal life is permitted during the first two trimesters of a pregnancy. In the third trimester, laws to protect the viable fetus may be passed, but are not required. (Oregon has no such protective law.) Since Roe v. Wade more than 35 million lives have been ended by abortion. Are we better off than we were? Or is feminist writer Naomi Wolf correct in warning that we are turning ourselves into "casually destructive men and women who share a cheapened view of life"?

Certainly a cheapened view of some life is part and parcel of legal abortion, with its classification of human beings into persons who are protected under the law and those (the unborn) who are not. Previous, similar divisions - Blacks, women, and Jews, for example, have been considered not fully human - are chillingly echoed in the words of late-term abortionist James McMahon: "... who owns the child? It's got to be the mother." Of course those earlier divisions are discredited today, indicating that the prolife cause will be a long-term winner.

Meanwhile, the lack of protection for unborn humans raises some difficult and unresolved issues. Are we to simply resign ourselves to selective abortions? What should our national position be on sex selection abortions widely practiced in other countries? Down's syndrome individuals are under attack, with upward of 92 percent of those discovered to have this condition killed before birth. Is the Prolife Alliance of Gays and Lesbians being alarmist when they worry about the discovery of a homosexuality gene that would permit gays and lesbians to be targeted in the womb?

Is a diminished connection of fathers to their offspring an effect of legal abortion? In other contexts men today are encouraged to become more involved with their children. Under Roe v. Wade, the opposite is the case. It is not surprising that some men argue that what is a woman's private choice before birth should also be her private responsibility after birth.

Why have child abuse and teen pregnancy rates increased during the 25 years of Roe v. Wade? It appears that legal abortion is not a solution to these problems; perhaps it is actually a contributor.

The slippery slope is another concern: while some lives remain outside the circle of protection, other vulnerable lives are at risk of being pushed out as well. The recent vote to legalize assisted suicide in Oregon may undercut recent efforts at improving end-of-life care. What problems might arise from providing a right to assisted suicide when we don't have a right to health care?

After 25 years there is evidence that legal abortion is not the panacea for women that some had expected. Kate Michelman, head of the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League, told a reporter that "Abortion is a bad thing; no woman wants to have an abortion." She has also said, "Abortion is the guarantor of a woman's ... right to participate fully in the social and political life of society." This is an extremely limiting view of society and women.

Why should women accept a bad thing as a condition for full participation? Rather than choosing abortions, do women submit to abortions because they feel there is no other choice? Does the easy availability of abortion serve as a deterrent to more women-friendly alternatives? Will we develop a more positive view of women's rights to pass along to our daughters? Psychology professor Sidney Callahan provides a glimpse of what might be when she says, "Genuine equality between the sexes will be reached when women can affirm what makes them unique as women and still be treated fairly at home, in the workplace, in society."

Despite the attention given to the disagreements surrounding the abortion issue, there are areas where people generally do agree. Abortion per se is a bad thing. No woman wants to have an abortion. The decrease in the number of abortions in recent years is a hopeful sign; we must continue in this direction. What if women insisted on keeping our bodies, our children, and our lives intact? Can we progress into a more life-affirming future? That would be reason to celebrate.