With yesterday marking the 34th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the groundbreaking judicial opinion that changed the landscape of women's reproductive rights in America, many popular areas of protest probably found their own landscape slightly changed: colored with pro-choicers loudly celebrating a landmark decision, and littered with equally idealistic pro-lifers hissing provocative words like "baby killer" in their confettied wake.
But amid all of this self-righteous clamor, one word in particular will repeatedly arise as the center of all our abortion debates this week: "personhood," that favorite fallback of all pro-lifers, which will surely be squawked ad nauseam by either side -- a cacophony as obnoxious, incessant and pointless as the fake bird sounds on Mill Avenue.
While religious ideology compels the pro-life crowd to argue that fetuses, as citizens, have a right to life, the pro-life crowd compels pro-choicers to argue that fetuses aren't people.
This is followed by a volley of pseudo-scientific facts coupled with inane metaphors about life and freedom that is, at the very least, entertaining to the passers-by but, ultimately, a very poor use of Hayden Lawn.
It's hard to believe that after 34 years, people are still hung up on an argument that the Supreme Court itself decided was irrelevant at the time of their landmark decision way back in 1973.
But as often as debaters talk about the case, whether touting or criticizing it, few seem to know very much about the particulars of the judicial decision.
The Supreme Court Justices didn't overlook the issue of personhood when they made their decision. Among other things, they were concerned about when a life begins, and whether fetuses have, or should have rights.
But ultimately they decided that they "need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins" because they felt it wasn't their place to speculate on something that doctors, philosophers and theologians couldn't agree upon.
That's right – the flustered folks facing off on Hayden Lawn aren't the only ones who can't agree on this issue - far more educated and intelligent people can't either.
The justices eventually came to the conclusion that "the unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the legal sense" and therefore, would not be considered as such just because legislators favoring a particular theory of life try to override a woman's reproductive rights.
So why is there still so much focus on "personhood," and not on the other countless (and more valid) points of disagreement regarding the abortion debate?
Because, despite the fact that everyone seems to have an opinion on abortion (formed carefully and thoughtfully, no doubt, through many years of study and deliberation), few know very much about it: its practice, its history, its consequences or its benefits, and especially its legislation.
Personhood is an easy argument for the ignorant to adopt because there is no answer to it. And, circular debates are a great way to avoid talking about more tangible issues, like the disastrous failure of abstinence-only programs in schools, the pro-life movement's hostile war on sex (both safe and non), and the younger pro-choice generation's failure to articulate its own stance.
Then again, it's rarely ever been a match of wits as these two groups duke it out for possession of the American woman's body — the pro-lifers resorting to ugly pictures of allegedly aborted fetuses and the pro-choicers sticking to the tried and true tradition of catchy picket-line chants, such as the ever clever "Keep your rosaries / off my ovaries!"
It would be refreshing if, after 34 years, both sides dropped the gimmicks and instead focused their creativity and passion into educating the public about the issue at hand — and, in doing so, actually learn a little something themselves about the issue that they spend so much time arguing about.
Reach the reporter at:catherine.traywick@asu.edu.
