Abortion

Note: Before reading My Thoughts, please read My Disclaimer!

For many years, I've told people that I'm both anti-abortion and pro-choice:

• You can choose whether or not to have sex.
• You can choose whether or not to use birth control.
• Depending on those choices, you may then have the choice of what color to paint the baby's room.

All kidding aside, I think this does illustrate an important point. Being anti-abortion does not mean that someone has no choices about becoming a parent. It is really quite the opposite: people have numerous low-cost and effective options to choose from to avoid becoming a parent, if they so desire.

The label "pro-choice" really is very misleading, but it was selected because of how distasteful "pro-abortion" sounds. Everyone is pro-choice and everyone has options. It's just that the "pro-abortion" group wants abortion to be among the many choices, and the anti-abortion group, of course, does not.

This issue is also debated with the phrase "a woman's right to choose", often under the banner of "women's rights" and "feminism". I'm 100% in favor of women's rights being equal to men's rights. (And, I resent the abortion debate being somehow recast as a "male oppression" issue, because that's clearly not the case at all.) My understanding of the meaning of "a woman's right to choose" is that a woman (and only that woman) ought to be able to make decisions about what's going on inside her body. Again, I think that this is very misleading, as it sounds "obviously correct" on the surface. But, that would imply that if a woman is 8½ months pregnant, then aborting her pregnancy at that time would be perfectly acceptable. Rather, I think almost all of us would agree that would be absolutely horrible (and actually it is criminal). The famed Roe vs. Wade decision only legalized first-trimester abortions (except in special cases, such as a threat to the life of the mother). So, even Roe vs. Wade recognized that there are limits to a "woman's right to choose" -- specifically, a time limit: three months.

By contrast, there are also those that believe that "life begins at conception". This is yet another misleading phrase, as we're talking about "live" elements from two human beings commingling to create a new, (eventually) self-sufficient human being. The ingredients were "live", so of course the result is "live". It is a bit of a stretch to suggest that the instant result (a formless glob of cells) is a baby. This is especially true when you consider how frequently the body naturally miscarries, due to something in the cell growth not progressing correctly. The "life begins at conception" group would consider even a "morning after" pill or an IUD as "murderous" forms of birth control, and I think that's quite a bit overly zealous. The technical method of birth control achieved by a daily pill vs. a "morning after" pill or an IUD are really not so different. (Of course, some believe that all "unnatural" birth control is wrong, but that's even more extreme and ridiculously impractical.)

So, then it would seem that the debate to find an "acceptable" answer lies somewhere in the middle. The question then becomes "When does the 'formless glob of cells' become a 'baby'?" This is where medical science comes in to inform us of the details of embryonic development. Consider these facts:

• An unborn baby's heart starts beating within a month of conception.
• An unborn baby's pain receptors start developing within two months of conception.

Actually, I think the anti-abortion and pro-abortion sides have more in common than they admit. Certainly there are extremist idiots on both sides: those that bomb abortion clinics and those that assert that a human life doesn't begin until birth. But, I think both sides would agree that we all want children to grow up in an environment where they are WANTED. Raising a child is such a huge responsibility. And, many parents who intentionally have children are pretty awful parents, so the prospect of "forcing" someone to have a child when they don't want one is not appealing. So, don't raise the child if you don't want one. There are many, many people on waiting lists to adopt a child.

The difference between the anti-abortion and pro-abortion groups seems to really be in their disagreement about how to be responsible about the "consequences" of sex. People know that sex can lead to pregnancy. So, use good, reliable protection, or be willing to deal with the "consequences", says the anti-abortion crowd. Whereas, the pro-abortion group seems to want to give people yet another chance to erase their "mistake", but this time at the expense of an unborn child.  (Remember, the beating heart and the pain receptors!)

I'm really not surprised that the pro-abortion crowd rationalizes that an abortion is better than an unloved child. (I don't agree that this outcome is a certainty, as "accidental" children can be loved, if the parents choose to take care of their child.) But, what I really can't understand is how the pro-abortion crowd can think that abortion is a better alternative than adoption.

The dangerous rationalization continues with such statements such as "Making abortions illegal will just send women back to the alleys with coat hangars, causing women to die needlessly." The implication, of course, is that women are going to have abortions, so we might as well make them legal and safe (for the mother). That makes about as much sense as saying that "People are going to drink and drive, so let's just make it legal and then make sure the sober drivers do a better job of staying out of their way so that the drunks don't run into anyone." Or, maybe society (not the courts) should decide what behavior is acceptable?!

Just like usual in our culture, it all comes back to personal accountability...and all-too-often we feel sorry for people, when it was really their own very bad choices that got them into a mess in the first place.