abortion

As an American male, there are those who would say I am not entitled to an opinion on this issue. I'm in fact mostly of the opinion that it is up to the woman in question to determine matters. I would have some input of course. I feel it is only right that the man who does the baby-making can at least voice his displeasure at that moment if it is necessary. But he can't force her to take any course of action, any more than the government has rights to. It is after all, her body. We must first however determine why this debate has reached such caustic levels and what is wrong with the views on the extremes of this issue.

Of the first, the issue of children is of some importance to any society. The concern over their well-being, upbringing, and production is a matter of interest. But ultimately these are private concerns. Not national. Not public, private, individual problems. Each of us has a good deal of input into the decision to have children, and how we should like them raised, or the decision not to have children. Consequently, the debate revolves around an issue which at its heart concerns the future, our children, in some manner. Anytime we concern children, it is sure to stir up the storm. Such emotion has little place in this debate's resolution, but it will not be ignored.

Of abortion, it can be said there are a number of reasons for a woman to want to have one. To preserve a figure or lifestyle, obsequiousness to the man's demands, health concerns, rape, or simple timing considerations (career or a young age). Some of these are entirely legitimate reasons recognized by all but the most extreme involved. What is of note is that each represents a choice, perhaps not always the right one, but a choice nonetheless. Therefore, the side of pro-abortion is not pro-abortion at all, but rather pro-choice. Few very people would have us at the ridiculous presumption that all people should abort at any time for any reason. Given the often traumatic nature of the event, the depressing state of 'losing' a pregnancy for some, and whatever psychological/moral damage inflicted on a family, abortion is not to be taken lightly.

Concurrently, the opposing side is not pro-life, but anti-choice. Pro-life implies that the abolition of abortion is in some way defending life. While it is noteworthy that many would have the abortion as the murder of a fetus, this is not a conclusive evidence that we are in someway ending lives. There are a great manner percentages of pregnancies which effectively terminate naturally, but prior to birth, just as an abortion is. What if we could avoid these? Would it be our moral imperative to protect every fetus as it develops as though each is a precious commodity? I suspect that the damage an ill-timed or unprepared birth does to some families (or broken families as it may be) is often just as damaging to a life than ending one prematurely. Someone of a good 'breeding' age is just as likely to go on to reproduce at a later time, thus continuing life. This is pro-life. Life will go on, because they reproduced. Anti-choice says that a woman or her family have no choice but to carry a child full-term regardless of whether they want the child and the burden of responsibility that entails or not.

This does however bring up some interesting points. Of one particular note, abortion is not always the most comfortable experience, and for many people represents a tremendous internal moral conflict that is difficult to accept. So I suspect it is best if it does not represent our first line of defense or even our first option to attack the problem of an unwanted pregnancy, if only to avoid the stickiness of invasive trauma and unpleasant moral compasses. First of all, it is important to note that even if a woman carries a child full-term, it is not necessary that she carry the burden of its upbringing, alone or otherwise. Adoption, if it were streamlined and effective, is a perfectly legitimate option. It carries its own emotional quandaries of course. But for some, it may satisfy the problems of child-rearing without going to the moral dilemma of sacrificing an unborn child.

Secondly, there are a great many ill-formed arguments that supporting abortion is encouraging promiscuity or sexual experimentation by teens (and of course contributing to the moral filth of society, whatever that means). I suspect that such people must have had bad experiences in their teenage years as well, because to be quite frank, many teens will engage in these practices regardless of whether we encourage them to or not. Many will do so simply because we are encouraging them not to. What is at issue here is the matter of informed behaviors. I went to what might be considered a 'good' high school. Of the graduating class, I can say that there were rather few of the ladies who had gotten 'knocked up'. I do not remember horror stories from health class that had much to do with raising babies or other side effects of sex. But I suspect there were still a healthy percentage of the ladies actively practicing some sexual activity, regardless of the supposed wholesome nature of being at a 'good school'. I would say I know this but I was also a recluse then and didn't know enough people to make this an effective survey. The difference between that school and others around might be information. I do not remember very much in the way of the school handing out condoms for example (they didn't), but we were a touch more educated on the dangers of STDs and were well-aware that women can get pregnant if you have sex with them (regardless of any claims to the contrary, its biology here people, not love). Precautions were undoubtedly taken, short-circuiting the need for a great many abortions. Some abortions undoubtedly occurred as well, privately and with whatever consequences involved thought out, at least to the manner a teenager can think clearly enough. Whatever resistance to knowledge of sexual activity and its education is, its foolish to believe that educating people on sex is somehow encouragement to sex. Teenagers have plenty of encouragement already. Hell twenty-somethings have plenty of encouragement still. Get over it. Teens will seek out information and some of them will even heed advice to be careful. Thinking is difficult for most of us I know, but give most 'educated' people the choice between raising a child on a Burger King salary and doing it on a college degree and its resulting career and I think most of us will take our chances betting on our futures instead of mortgaging them right now for a few minutes of awkward (and unprotected) sex. Abstinence is an option; expecting it is like wishing for rain in the Sahara. Could be waiting a long time for that train. We have to be more practical.

To the moral argument that a fetus is a human being, and killing a human being is murder, we have a good deal of metaphysics. Metaphysics, for those of us who don't study philosophy, deals with a lot of unanswerable questions; things like the soul, the existence of God, afterlife, and so forth. These are questions answered by faith, not logic. Science can tell us when a fetus is physically functional as a human being, when the various parts are active: the brain, the heart and so forth. But not one of these tells us when it is a person; just when it has the potential to be one. Most people are uncomfortable with the idea of terminating a baby once it reaches a certain point. I think this is a reasonable accommodation, because to reach that point, a woman has had considerable time to contemplate her options. She should by then be fully committed to the child barring health complications. But what of the people who would have us argue for immediate person hood? Fertilization creates a zygote. A great many of these fertilized eggs do not even reach fetal status, much less become whiny and cuddly infants. This is a natural process. It has nothing to do with the moral purity of the 'mother' or even whether she wants to be a mother. There are no choices involved. And yet, by this definition, a human being has died. To be safe, I believe we should offer up the definition the census department errs on. They wait for a birth. A live birth is when a person gains person hood. There is a stage prior to that where a mind is active, the heart begins beating, lungs and other organs are formed. But throughout all these developments, the fetus is totally dependent on the mother. It cannot sustain itself even through infancy, but at least at that point, there are levels of survival without a mother. It has become at that point a functioning and 'independent' being, in as far as people can be independent. And that I would say is a fair definition of person hood. Not the potential for one, but the existence of one. Potential people do not exist, because by any rational definition, a person either is or is not. It is impossible to create legislation which effectively protects 'imagined' states.

I have no illusions that there are religions that explicitly forbid abortions, or that there are people whose spiritual beliefs forbid it. This is perfectly fine in a functional democracy for such people to believe as they do, protest, even mobilize politically. What is however not fine is that they have projected their own private spiritual beliefs upon society as a whole. Our distinct private relations with whatever god or entity we see fit to bestow worship and fealty toward have no bearing on how we should demand others to act. It is permissible for such people to express displeasure, offer counsel or advice to the contrary. It would be best if they could offer more rational and less 'god wills it' type advice, but for some people these things matter. Even worse, the actions of these free radicals impose upon people who seek out abortions in their time of personal crisis a stigma that is often entirely unfair, even inconsistent with the supposed religions of their choosing. I'm not an expert on theology, but tolerance, forgiveness, and love for fellow human beings tend to be high on the lists for things demanded by religions. None of these are expressed in the most vigorous and spiteful anti-abortion views.

Finally there are great many studies on the numbers of abortions conducted during the years prior to Roe v Wade when it was illegal in many states. These concluded that many abortions will be conducted anyway when the need or want is strong enough. There are great many illicit activities which go on whether we find them legal or immoral. The choices and consequences that go with them will be brought to bear, irrespective of whether we wish them gone by legal measure. But I do not see how it is our sacred and legal duty to remove the right to choice where reproduction is concerned. Our society is sufficiently advanced that people can take precaution, use some common sense, and generally provide a passive defense against unwanted pregnancies in the first place. It is also sufficiently advanced that we do not need women to function as brood mares, popping out children as rapidly as possible against the specters of infantile mortality rates and overall death rates. If women are to be respected and equal in stature with men, and I believe this to be the goal, then they should have some control over their own lives. Namely this means that the bearing of children would be somewhat more to their own liking, rather than subject to the dominion of government, and that this view reflects a pro-choice attitude, not an anti-life attitude. Ultimately, wherever possible, I would err on the side that gives us less government and more freedom. Even in this sticky moral debate, I can't say that it is the job of the government to impose these duties because the cost of freedom is just too high. That includes the right to screw up and learn from it too. In looking over how people make decisions, it often matters greatly how they attained the point they are at. Abortions are generally a painful binary decision at the tail end of a series of errors, some of which are deliberate, and some may have been accidents. It is best if we err cautiously and find ways to avoid this painful internal deliberation and encourage others to do the same.