Abortion

In response to a question asked elsewhere, I wrote the following:

This is a key issue for me, not in the usual sense but in the sense that it has been battled at so furiously from all sides that my own position has had to be evaluated and re-evaluated numerous times. I've been on both sides of the debate and have believed both sides to be "the correct" one. Which is to say that my article here will be more of a discussion of reflections rather than an attempt to say "what is right." As if there were such a thing. As to what *I* believe? It will become more clear as you read on.

Individual choice in the matter is paramount. This ties in very closely with the idea that we can't or rather, shouldn't legislate morality. What is right for one person or even the majority in such an issue is irrelevant to the focal point of the matter, that focal point being, of course, the choice and option of the individual pregnant woman. Moral legislation such as this is founded almost entirely in emotion. But even that isn't a sufficient argument to keep this issue out of congressional debates and out of our courtrooms. Most laws are based on morals, for example, we aren't allowed to kill, we aren't allowed to cut of a man's hand when he steals an orange from the supermarket. The difference here is that abortion is a crime only because it is defined as such, not because there is a secondary harm to society, ie., no victim.

"Aha!" some may say. "The unborn child is a victim of MURDER!" That statement forces the argument of whether or not the embryo/fetus is a viable life form. Even scientists are at odds about this so I doubt that we as mere mortals can make the call. Personally, I think the embryo/fetus is a parasite to the mother and lives, not even symbiotically, but feeds entirely off the mother's body, relying wholly upon it for it's survival, beyond the womb, even. That's an exclusively biological view and leads to the conclusion that while it may be alive, it is only by the grace and permission of the mother. Even the hormonal changes forced on the mother leading to an emotional attachment to the unborn child are geared toward ensuring that the mother takes care of said unborn child. Still, it is a parasite.

Before you flame me, recall that such a statement of the status of the embryo/fetus is an emotionally detached biological statement, not one which is arguable in the least. It's simply an unemotional statement of what nature has done to propogate life in mammals.

Having said all of that, a pregnant woman can genuinely feel the life inside her quite early on in the pregnancy. But not immediately. The only immediate effects are the quiet realization that something is changing in her body. After a few weeks, movement can be felt and the mother's attachment to the unborn begins to solidify quite well.

At what point, though, is it a life? Even a parasite is alive so you can't even use the argument that a child which cannot survive outside the womb is not a life. Yet, I don't believe you can call it a human life immediately upon conception. It is not even recognizable as human unless you jump into the DNA itself. The few cells which make up my gall bladder are alive and have human DNA but they are not a viable human life. That the embryo can eventually become human is not an argument that at the moment, it IS human.

So when does life begin? Not at conception. Certainly before birth. When the heart starts pumping? When brainwave activity is apparent? When does life begin? All of the above is to present the argument that abortion BEFORE the start of life should be a non-issue. Yet, we have not come to an agreement about when life begins and therefore, we have to admit that by having this argument, we don't even agree on what life, over all, really is.

I'm opposed to late-term and partial birth abortions. In my pea brain, I believe there is no doubt that at that point, the fetus is viable, human, and a sustainable life, regardless of the fact that it's still living parasitically off the mother host. Partial-birth abortions are not, in fact, abortions, they are killings, pure and simple. I also find it truly amazing that a woman could go through her entire pregnancy of nine-months and decide at the last minute that she doesn't want the child. There isn't any difference between this method of baby-disposal and the dumping of a newborn into a nearby garbage dumpster. My opinion, of course.

As a birth control method, I'm opposed to abortion. There are far more effective ways to prevent the birth of a child. I'll agree, however, that sometimes other methods can fail and allow an unwanted pregnancy to occur. At that point, I think abortion is pretty much paramount, however, it needs to be effected right away in order to accomplish it before life truly begins. The sooner the better, of course. Women who are on birth control and have a failure of that birth control method should have an easy decision ahead of them. I'm always confused, therefore, about why people get in a sweat about abortion when they've been doing other things to prevent pregnancy in the first place. The other method failed, jump on this other last-ditch option and don't debate about it. Ahh, but the reality is, the emotional ties a woman has with the new embryo are part of biology's attempt to protect the child. Hence the change of heart when a woman gets pregnant "accidentally."

People are generally very irresponsible with their sexual behavior. If a person is going to have sex, they should decide up front if they want to have a baby or not. It isn't just about having a baby after 9 months, it's about having a child under your care for the next 9 months, PLUS eighteen or more years. All planning and thought and care should be given to this and it should be a conscientious decision, well in advance of the conception. A good financial backing, a good marital relationship, a strong support structure, etc. etc. Having kids willy-nilly is abhorrent. Yet I'm sure that the huge majority of all children are born without a thought from their parents about the future care. If a person doesn't want to have a baby, they need to be sure they take steps to make sure their sexual activity does not lead to an unwanted pregnancy or unwanted child. It's one reason I'm all but completely convinced that the huge majority of "accidental" conceptions are intentional.

Here's one which makes me laugh uproariously and painfully. I've heard this countless times when abortion is suggested as a way to undo one of these "accidental" pregnancies.

"But it's contrary to the laws of god."

"Waitaminnit. You're a believer in god's will? Christian, I presume?"

"Yeah."

"And it's against Christian beliefs to have an abortion?"

"Yeah!" And I refuse to participate in a practice which is against god's law!"

"Are you married?"

"Er, no."

"Then why are you having sex? Isn't THAT against god's law?"

"Ummmm, errr, uhhhh, well, gee."

"That's what I thought."

These are the same people who are the purveyors of unwanted children in our society. "No, we don't want abortions to ever happen," they say, but they also give woefully underenthusiastic support of helping unwanted children have a decent chance or opportunity in this life. Unwanted kids become the predators of our society and they lose out on the good things we have available, particularly in the devoped nations. Adoptions? Only perfect newborn infants get adopted with regularity and frankly, most mothers will keep their kids until they are just old enough to become unadoptable before they start to have second thoughts. At that point, while they aren't crowding around to drop the kids off at the orphanages, they do abandon them emotionally and for all intents and purpose, drop them off their radar and don't do what it takes to make sure those kids are viable members of society. Remember, the commitment to a child goes well beyond the womb.

The biggest double-whammy of these moralists is that they frequently are the same people who advocate little or no sex eduction for young teens who are starting to experiment with sex. They don't want sex ed in the classrooms because they believe that sex ed is the reponsibility of the parents. Ironically, that statement is absolutely correct, however, they fail miserably in its execution. Their failure, however, isn't enough to convince them that they should at least give the schools a chance to fix that problem, however inept the schools may be. Thus, hypocrisy is heaped up on hypocricy and once again, the end-all and be-all of solutions to society's problems becomes the cause and the exacerbator of those very same problems. I'm appalled, to say the least.

Ultimately, however, the woman put the baby there, she should be able to do with it as she pleases. She should be able give birth and keep the child 'til it's a productive adult member of society. She should be able to give birth and neglect the child or raise it badly as it grows older. She should be able to give birth and put the child up for adoption. OR she should be able to abort it.

Personally, I'm opposed to abortion as a primary form of birth control and I think that if abortion is to be used at all, it should be as a last-ditch, we-did-everything-else-and-it-failed approach to preventing pregnancy. Or it can be used when the life the the mother is genuinely threatened or there is rape or incest. Even then, it should be up to the discretion of the mother. Yeah, some of those are holdovers from my days as a Right-Winger but after a lot of thought, I think those are valid reasons to have an abortion. Ultimately, what I believe is that it is up to the mother entirely. In fact, it always has been up to the mother anyway so I'm still uncertain as to why we still have to bring it up as a political issue every time we have an election. The only thing the right-wingers will accomplish if they succeed in outlawing abortions is they will create an underground network of illicit abortion clinics wherein peoples lives are destroyed. Much as they have done with many others of society's ills.

"What's the candidate's/Party's stand on Abortion," is always a key question. Some people don't even vote unless this question is answered and it is the only issue for these voters. Psychotic. What's also psychotic are the people conducting violence against abortion or even in the name of abortion rights. They are NOT generating sympathy from me and they frequently do their cause a great deal of damage. The guy who murders abortion doctors because he claims he was told to by god has ensured that I and many many others want nothing to do with his god.

If people believe abortion is against the commandments of god, they should be letting god sort it all out after we all die. How arrogant are we to think we can legislate people into obeying god's will when all he has to do is solve the problem himself? This is, again, a victimless crime, more than less, and if god has a problem with it, let's allow him to solve it. Nobody is his agent here on earth to deal with this debate for him. We rarely or never legislate adultery as a crime any longer, why abortion?

--Wag--