I have been avoiding writing about this issue for a while, but now it needs to be addressed. On Tuesday the Senate approved the first federal ban on partial birth abortion, concluding part of the debate that took years of dispute and that cleared the way for President Bush to sign the measure, making it law.

I admit, I am a pro-choice Democrat. Pro-lifers often tell me of death and killing babies. They say, "You won't get away with this baby murder!" As a clarification, being pro-choice does not mean that one agrees that every time a woman gets pregnant she should abort the baby. Also, some people who are pro-choice will never see abortion as an option.

I believe it is time to face the fact that abortion has a place in fertility regulation and is a method of family planning. Women may not intend to rely on abortion as a means of family planning, but in reality that is often the way it works, as partially reflected in the elevated rate of abortions.

In Western societies, the arguments for a woman's right to choose seem relatively basic. The need for "free abortion on demand" was a central tenet of the women's liberation movement and abortion was situated in the context of women's rights and social equality. It was understood that if a woman was unable to control her fertility, she was not considered on equal terms with men. Also, because contraception is not foolproof, if a woman is unable to end an unwanted pregnancy she is unable to enjoy her sexuality. To argue against "the right to choose" implied women should fulfill their traditional domestic roles as wives and mothers at a time when sexual freedom and women's economic independence were celebrated.

I believe that each human being has been bestowed with a personal conscience and has the ability to exercise it in the process of decision making. Alternatively, I have to say that those opting for an abortion should think quickly and not wait until the embryo develops into a fetus, because that would mean taking a life. Thus, women who are pregnant as a result of the failure of condoms, rape or the lack of preventive care should decide in the first few months if they want to abort the child and act quickly. In this manner, the plea for ending partial birth or aborting in the last trimester does not sound impractical — it in fact seems reasonable. However, in my view, the ban is still not feasible because there are many negative consequences of its formation into law. The Senate approval of the ban on "partial birth" abortion is potentially one action in a string of many that will threaten a woman's reproductive autonomy and other issues.

Another consequence is that once the bill becomes law, a doctor can be imprisoned for two years for performing a medical procedure that can save the health of a female patient, in a matter of choice between the fetus and mother at the time of birth. In what society is it reasonable to imprison a doctor for providing medical care? The legislators are interfering with women's lives in an unconscionable manner.

My favorite question to pro-lifers is this: What about the child once he/she comes into this world? There are many women who don't want to keep their kids because of financial or family-related issues but end up giving birth when denied abortion rights. How will they raise a child they did not want? Will that child ever be happy or grow up like a normal kid?

I have to agree with Senator Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, when he said, "Congress has turned its back on America's women, their right to privacy, the right to choose — America's women are now second-class citizens."

Shouger Merchant is a sophomore in LAS. Her columns appear Mondays. She can be reached at opinions@dailyillini.com.