Talking Pro Life vs. Being Pro Live

Let me start with a confession.  The title above is not my own.  I stole it from an article I got from the most recent Chuck Colson Ministries Breakpoint Edition.  I stole it because this title sparked the idea for this blog.  Of course, the article in Breakpoint was about abortion, Planned Parenthood and politics. Mine uses the same title but applies to to the question of what does being Pro Life really mean?

Let’s start answering this question with a question.  Is being Pro Life only about abortion? Is that the only qualification for being able to wear the label of Pro Life?  If so, then it seems that a serial killer could call themselves Pro Life as long as they are for killing only after the person has left the womb.  I decided to pay a visit to the largest and oldest right to life organization in the United States – The National Right to Life Committee to determine what being Pro Life means to them.  From their mission statement:

The mission of National Right to Life is to protect and defend the most fundamental right of humankind, the right to life of every innocent human being from the beginning of life to natural death.

………….

National Right to Life carries out its lifesaving mission by promoting respect for the worth and dignity of every individual human being, born or unborn, including unborn children from their beginning; those newly born; persons with disabilities; older people; and other vulnerable people, especially those who cannot defend themselves.  Our areas of concern include abortion, infanticide, euthanasia, assisted suicide, and the killing of unborn children for their stem cells.

That seems to be a nice definition of what they mean by Pro Life.  However, if so, I very often see a severe disconnect between their mission statement and the views of those who call themselves Pro Life.

They say that they promote “respect for the worth and dignity” of “unborn children from their beginning; those newly born; persons with disabilities; older people; and other vulnerable people, especially those who cannot defend themselves”.

Sounds good.  But it seems that for many, and probably for most Pro Lifers, there should be a caveat put on this statement.  Good for United States citizens only.  And for some, only for some United States citizens.

I am sure that there are those who are Pro Life who are concerned about the immigrants, both illegal and legal.  At the same time it is true that most of those who see illegal immigrants solely as threats and not people, those who expressed no concern for the separation of child from parents of those coming to seek asylum in the United States, those who cheered putting our military on the border to repel those fleeing violence and extreme poverty are Pro Life.  Or call themselves that.

The same for those refugees from the Middle East and Africa, and other areas.  The Syrians for example.  The majority of those cheering Trump shutting down the refugees from those areas to almost nothing also call themselves Pro Life.

It seems that these Pro Life people believe the only lives worth respecting are those of United States citizens. No others need apply.

Now, I had thought to put in about not caring for the poor, but decided not to.  Often these Pro Lifers do care, but they support policies and groups that harm the poor.  But, that is not due to not caring, but due to having definite political and social ideas about what is best for our country and what the best way to help consists of.  I can disagree strongly on their way of “helping”, but their way is rooted, in the end, in wanting to help.  Usually.

However, there is one area that always totally befuddles, irritates and frustrates me.  There is one area of the abortion issue where, theoretically, those of us on the Pro Choice side and those on the Pro Life side could come together; reducing the unwanted pregnancies that lead to abortions.

Providing cheap, easily obtained contraception has been shown time and again to be the most effective way to reduce abortions.  Not by a little, but by a lot.

However, time and again, most of those calling themselves Pro Life oppose measures to make this happen.  Many oppose contraception in general, or at most, allow only condoms.  Others fear that single women will engage in sex if provided reliable and cheap (or even free!) birth control.  Others do so out of a political ideology.   They oppose our government from providing free birth control as well as opposing our government requiring insurance to cover the costs of birth control.

From this, it is clear that reducing or eliminating abortion is not really their first and foremost priority. It is also clear that respecting the worth and dignity of those in need of such contraction is not a priority for them either.

Given the United States centric view of many of these Pro Life people, and given that most of them oppose providing and supporting the most effective means of reducing abortions, and,also given that most of them support providing the worst and least effective type of sex education, I have a hard time with them calling themselves Pro-Life.

It seems to me what respect and rights that the great majority of those who wear this title allow all people seems to be shallow and very limited.  The lives of all does not seem to be of paramount importance to them.  So much so that I really have to wonder, do they really deserve the title of Pro-Life?

Read Full Post »

Moral Outrage vs Moral Good

The great state of Texas is considering  passing more restrictions on a woman’s right to choose.  Bills regulating the use of the RU- 486 abortion pill and a fetal pain bill that would outlaw abortions after the 20^th week are under consideration.

Not only that, they are continuing to support abstinence only sex education and doubling down on it by making sex education even harder to get within the public schools of Texas (for those interested in Texas Senate Bill 521, click on this link to learn more).  

Hoozah!!!

The march towards doing away with the moral acid (abortion) that has burned and stained our nation for so long continues!

Or does it?

For those who are anti-choice/pro-life and who are celebrating these seemingly approaching victories, I have a question:

Are you more interested in reducing the number of abortions or in expressing moral outrage and being “morally pure”?

I ask because when looking at abortion rates around the world something becomes very clear very quickly.  Those countries with the lowest abortion rates have legal and liberal abortion laws.  Not a one of the countries with the lowest abortion rates outlaw or greatly restrict abortions.  It is also noteworthy that many, if not most, of those countries outlawing abortions have high rates of abortion, despite them being illegal.

Western Europe has the lowest rate of abortion in the world at 12 per 1,000 women between 15 and 44.    We, with our mix of abortion rights with restrictions, come in at 21 per 1,000 women.  Of course this is still much better than the Latin American countries where it is not only restricted but also usually illegal.  Their abortion rate is 31 per 1,000 women.

Now another item that I notice is that in all, repeat all, of these countries with the lowest abortion rates birth control is also not only available but readily available, cheaply available, and available for all age groups.  In fact Western Europe actively teaches about contraception and works to make sure that the expectation is that if you engage in sex you use birth control – no matter your age.   And then they, as I said, make birth control easy to get; even for those in junior high school.

Consider the following facts:

–         Frequently the countries with highest abortion rates are those in which abortion is illegal or severely restricted.

–         Countries with lowest abortion rates all have legal abortions.

–         There is no relation between outlawing abortions and reducing them.    One seems to be independent of the other.

–         Countries with freer access to contraceptives always have lower abortion rates.

–        There is a strong link between use of contraceptives and low abortion rates.

–         Anti-Choice/pro-life people wish to make abortion illegal.

–         Anti-Choice/pro-life people usually do NOT support contraceptive education, nor do they support making it more readily accessible.   In other words they wish to promote that which does not make a difference (making abortions illegal) and act against that which has proven highly effective at reducing abortions – contraception and comprehensive sex education.

I feel comfortable in stating that the anti-choice/pro-life people, in their efforts to promote morality and eliminate the killing of fetuses, are instead working to actually increase it by creating the conditions for abortion rates to increase.

I find it funny (in a sadly ironic sort of way) that Texas is so pro-business.   All the best businesses look around at other successful businesses and look for why those businesses are successful.   The findings are then called “best practices” and a business that does not engage in the best practices of their industry usually winds up going under.   Yet the great state of Texas refuses to do that in regards to abortions and sex education, preferring instead to be “morally pure” and crossing their fingers.

As for myself, I consider myself a pro-choice/pro-life person.  I believe the woman has a right to choose for herself.  However I would like our country to create an environment in which choosing abortion would be rare or even non-existent due to the fact that there are very few unwanted pregnancies.

Given what can be seen around the world in regards to best practices, this would involve creating a society  in which abortion is legal and not surrounded by roadblocks while at the same time contraceptives are cheap, widely available, and easy to obtain with an expectation that those engaging in sex use them.

Now for me the decision is fairly easy.  I look at the evidence and go with it.   However the anti-choice/pro-life  people have a harder decision.  They first have to decide what is more important to them – reducing abortions or being “morally pure”.

 

Read Full Post »

Why I Am Pro Life

I am Pro Life because:

–          Of the joy and wonder I feel when I play with my grandson.

–          Of how important the happiness and safety of both my wife and daughters are to me.

–          Of the love and support my parents have given me.

–          Of how much I enjoy living – even during the rough times.

–          I believe that human life is wonderful and precious.

–          I believe that we, both as individuals and collectively, should work to improve that life for all so that all can experience a satisfying, fulfilling, and joyful existence.

–          Because of all of this I believe that we as a nation should work together to reduce abortions.  In the overwhelming majority of cases an abortion is the result of a failure. 

–          To accomplish this we need to look at the most effective way to reduce abortion.

–          This way should also respect the lives of those already fully human and fully living.   

These last two points – finding the most effective way to reduce abortions and respecting those already fully human and fully living – are where I differ from most of those who call themselves pro life. 

Most groups and individuals who call themselves pro life seem to value style over substance.  They wish for it to appear that they are acting to reduce abortions even if their actions do not do so and have no hope of doing so.

Most groups and individuals who call themselves pro life seem to value “moral purity” over effective solutions.    Because they are against abortion and call themselves pro life they ignore:

–          The fact that there is, at very best, a very weak correlation between abortion rates and their legality.  Some of the highest rates of abortion in the world exist in countries in which abortion has been made illegal, whereas the countries with the lowest rates of abortion in the world have freer access to abortion than we do in the United States.    

–          The fact that the one policy which does correlate strongly with abortion rate is how well a society promotes contraception and how easily are contraceptives obtained by everyone. 

Given the above two facts I would have hoped that most of those who call themselves pro life would give up this quest to make abortion illegal (since it has been shown to be either marginally effective or not effective at all) and instead focus their efforts at promoting comprehensive sex education, frank discussion not only on the types of contraceptives available but on their proper use, providing easily obtained and inexpensive birth control to all – whether married or single, whether 70 or 15. 

However that is not what is happening.  In fact many on the pro life side would like to restrict contraceptives instead of promote them – a decidedly self destructive position.   Restricting access to  contraceptives will only increase the number of abortions performed in the United States; which is why the campaign waged by many calling themselves pro life against Planned Parenthood is so bitterly ironic – in the name of saving life they would actually be the cause of a greater loss of life. 

It also seems that all too often those who call themselves pro life are more concerned about cells that have the potential to become fully human life than they are with those cells which have actually become human.    

Because of this they are not concerned with the health of those women who, instead of being deterred because of its illegality would instead seek other ways to obtain abortions – ways that are usually much less safe for the woman.

Because of this they would force a woman to give birth even if her pregnancy resulted from rape or incest.    

Because of this they would force a woman to give birth even if it would likely result in her death. 

Because of this they would force a woman to give birth, with all of its own dangers and stresses, even to a child who is dead at birth and has no chance of living. 

 I am Pro Life… and because I am, I am also Pro Choice.

Read Full Post »

Acts of Irony: The Anti-Abortionists

From http://www.guttmacher.org/media/nr/2012/01/18/index.html

“After a period of substantial decline, the global abortion rate has stalled, according to new research from the Guttmacher Institute and the World Health Organization (WHO). Between 1995 and 2003, the overall number of abortions per 1,000 women of childbearing age (15–44 years) dropped from 35 to 29; according to the new study, the global abortion rate in 2008 was virtually unchanged, at 28 per 1,000. This plateau coincides with a slowdown, documented by the United Nations, in contraceptive uptake, which has been especially marked in developing countries.”

…..

““The declining abortion trend we had seen globally has stalled, and we are also seeing a growing proportion of abortions occurring in developing countries, where the procedure is often clandestine and unsafe. This is cause for concern,” says Gilda Sedgh , lead author of the study and a senior researcher at the Guttmacher Institute. “This plateau coincides with a slowdown in contraceptive uptake. Without greater investment in quality family planning services, we can expect this trend to persist.” “

….

“The findings provide further evidence that restrictive abortion laws are not associated with lower rates of abortion. For example, the 2008 abortion rate was 29 per 1,000 women of childbearing age in Africa and 32 per 1,000 in Latin America, regions where abortion is highly restricted in almost all countries. In contrast, in Western Europe, where abortion is generally permitted on broad grounds, the rate is 12.

The Southern Africa subregion, where close to 90% of women live under South Africa’s liberal abortion law, has the lowest abortion rate in Africa, at 15 per 1,000 women. Other very low subregional rates are found in Western Europe (12) and Northern Europe (17), where both abortion and contraception are widely available either for free or at very low cost.

Eastern Europe presents a very different situation, with an abortion rate that is nearly four times that of Western Europe. This discrepancy corresponds with Eastern Europe’s relatively low levels of modern contraceptive use and low prevalence of highly effective methods such as the pill and the IUD. After a striking decline in the abortion rate between 1995 and 2003, from 90 to 44 per 1,000 women, Eastern Europe experienced virtually no change in the rate between 2003 and 2008.”

“These latest figures are deeply disturbing. The progress made in the 1990s is now in reverse. Promoting and implementing policies to reduce the number of abortions is now an urgent priority for all countries and for global health agencies, such as WHO,” says Richard Horton, editor of The Lancet. “Condemning, stigmatizing, and criminalizing abortion are cruel and failed strategies. It’s time for a public health approach that emphasizes reducing harm – and that means more liberal abortion laws.” “

More evidence that the best way to reduce abortions is to promote easy access to and provide early and complete education about contraceptives.  Those who try to eliminate abortions by promoting abstinence only education, who are against easy access to birth control (Rick Santorum for example), who wish to shut down Planned Parenthood and who work to make abortion illegal are only going to cause the abortion rate to rise in this country. 

Ironic isn’t it? 

 

 

Read Full Post »

Abortion – Part 2

In Part 1 I went over why I believed that a fetus does not have the same legal and moral status as one already born.  To quickly summarize those arguments (mainly because I used this summary in a dialogue with an anti choice person and rather like it – one caveat though; please read this summary in conjunction with my Abortion – Part 1 blog.  I do take into account fetal development there.  Summaries are not meant to deal with complexity but only to provide a quick overall picture.) a fetus should not have the same moral value as a person born due to three reasons:

1)  A fetus cannot be cared for by another person other than the mother.  The already born can be cared for by another family member, friends, or even complete strangers.

2)  A fetus cannot reason.  The already born can – even babies can at a rudimentary level.

3)  A fetus cannot consciously feel pain.  The already born can.  

We, as a society, already implicitely recognize these differences.  This is clearly evident by looking at two situations – one taken from real life and then extended and the other imaginary but illuminating. 

First – when it does come down to the life of the mother and the life of the fetus why do we not appoint a court attorney and why is it never decided that the mother – over her and her family’s objections – should be the one to die?   Even if this has never happened yet (although if the anti choice/pro life position wins though this would be a logical possibility) can you imagine the outrage that such a ruling would provoke?  Do you really think such a ruling would be correct?

Second – imagine that you are in a building that is on fire.  In front of you are two doors.  In one there is a case holding 100 fetuses.  In the other there is a 60 year old woman.  You only have time to save one – which do you choose?   I believe that the vast majority of people will chose to rescue the 60 year old woman even though she is nearer the end of her life while the fetuses are at the very beginning of their lives. 

Anyway, having got that our of my way, I would now like to go over how best to reduce abortions. 

As I mentioned in my previous blog, while I am for keeping the decision on whether to have an abortion with the individual woman and believe that an abortion can be the right and moral decision, it still involves the taking of a life – one that in the fullness of time would have become a human person in most cases.  Given that, while there will always be abortions (health, deformed fetus, rape, and incest, etc), we should work to reduce the number of abortions that occur to keep it as low as possible. 

The question then becomes what is the best way to accomplish this?  Through restrictive abortion laws or through other methods?

First let’s look at the results of restricting abortions.  The vast majority of my information here comes from the Guttmacher Institute http://www.guttmacher.org/, a very good source of information about sexuality, contraception, and abortion in the United States and around the world.  Although, as almost always, I have double checked some of their information from other sources just to be sure. 

From http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_IAW.html

–          Legal restrictions on abortion do not affect its incidence. For example, the abortion rate is 29 in Africa, where abortion is illegal in many circumstances in most countries, and it is 28 in Europe, where abortion is generally permitted on broad grounds. The lowest rates in the world are in Western and Northern Europe, where abortion is accessible with few restrictions.  Sedgh G, Henshaw S, Singh S, Åhman E, Shah IH. Induced abortion: rates and trends worldwide. Lancet 2007; 370: 1338–45.

This finding fits in well with other sources and information I have checked.  I find it especially interesting that the countries with the lowest abortion rates in the world are those that also have the least restrictive abortion laws – Western Europe with 12 abortions per 1,000 women age 15 – 44 and Northern Europe with 17 per 1,000 women age 15 – 44.    By comparison, North America (includes both the U.S. and Canada) have an abortion rate of 21 per 1,000 women between ages 15-44. 

Now I have had some argue that the difference is actually between that of the developed countries and the still developing countries.  After all most of the countries that have made abortions legal are the developed countries whereas most of the countries which have made abortions illegal are developing ones.  However that argument does not hold up since the abortion rates between the two are similar – 26 abortions per 1,000 women in developed countries vs. 29 per 1,000 women in developing countries.   Also, note that in the above quote from The Guttmacher Institute that although the lowest abortion rates are in Western and Northern Europe with legal abortion the overall abortion rate for developed countries is very close to that of developing countries.  Something else is at work here other than developed vs. developing countries and legal vs. legal abortions.  Later on I will discuss Eastern Europe to highlight what that something else is.

Also consider that there has been a reduction in abortion rates worldwide, from 35 per 1,000 women in 1995 to 29 per 1,000 women in 2003.   When you compare the numbers from developed countries where abortion is usually legal and those in developing countries where more than half outlaw abortions you find that the abortion rate from the developed countries fell from 35 to 26 abortions per 1,000 women while those from developing countries fell from 34 to 29.  

Looking at both of these numbers it quickly becomes apparent that developed vs. developing countries does not explain abortion rates. 

Nor does whether countries have legalized and easily attained abortion or have made abortions illegal explain abortion rates.   In fact legalization does not seem to play a role in reducing abortions – just look again at the rates of abortions in developing countries where more than half  have outlawed abortions – 29 per 1,000 women – to those of developed countries where the great majority have legalized abortion – 26 per 1,000 women. 

However if making abortion illegal doesn’t work then what does?  Simply put – birth control.

The fewer unintended pregnancies the lower the number of abortions.  It is really that simple.

A look at the same worldwide data clearly shows this relationship.  What both Western and Northern Europe have that the United States does not is a strong educational program about what methods of birth control are available, detailed information on how to use them, easy access to birth control, and a culture where society frowns on those who are sexually active and do not use birth control and makes those who engage in sex without proper birth control feel ashamed. 

I think a particularly telling fact on this is Eastern Europe where abortion rates have been falling rather drastically – from 90 per 1,000 women in 1995 to 44 per 1,000 women in 2003.  During this time and in this region abortions were usually legal and safe.  What changed though is that there has been a substantial increase in the use of birth control in that region. 

Although this is the most dramatic example the same trend holds true wherever you look in both developing and developed countries.  Access to and education about birth control does reduce abortions.  The fewer unintended pregnancies the fewer abortions. 

In summary, our current preoccupation with restricting abortion rights will not cause abortion rates to decline. Even though we do have legal abortions our laws restrict abortion more than in those of the countries in Northern and Western Europe with their much lower abortion rates.  In fact, I find it  interesting that we have one of the highest abortion rates in all the developed countries.

What making abortion illegal or greatly restricting it does do though is create a greater number of illegal, back alley abortions which are unsafe for the women vs. the safer abortions provided in countries where abortions are legal and easily attained. 

Again, looking at abortions worldwide you find that 5 million women are hospitalized each year due to infections and complications from unsafe abortions.  These complications account for 13% of maternal deaths each year.  Almost all of the abortion related deaths occurred in developing countries, most of which have made abortions illegal.   And this is not just a matter of developing vs. developed nations and their differences in health care. 

From http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_IAW.html

–           Where abortion is legal and permitted on broad grounds, it is generally safe, and where it is illegal in many circumstances, it is often unsafe. For example, in South Africa, the incidence of infection resulting from abortion decreased by 52% after the abortion law was liberalized in 1996. Jewkes et al, “The impact of age on the epidemiology of incomplete abortion in South Africa after legislative change,” BJOG 2005, 112, 355-9.

Same developing country with the only difference being that before abortions were illegal whereas after they were legal – and thus safer. 

Compare that to the numbers here in the United States where abortions are legal.  Here less that 0.3% of abortion patients experience a complication that requires hospitalization.  I can’t help but wonder though whether if we continue to go down this road of restricting access to abortion that we will soon see this number change.  Drastically.  And for no reason since restrictive abortion laws do not reduce abortions.

Instead of this quixotic quest to reduce abortions by placing so many restrictions on them that they are practically unobtainable for most women – especially the poor – we should be focusing on what really works to reduce abortions and that is reducing unintentional pregnancies by providing comprehensive education about birth control and creating an environment where it is expected that all of those who are sexually active will be using such. 

We need to create a culture in which not only do we provide easy access to birth control for all of our population and in which not only are all its members educated about birth control – the varieties available and proper usage –  but also in which it is NOT using birth control that is embarrassing and shameful and not the usage of such.   

If those who call themselves pro-life were really serious about reducing abortions and concerned about the health of women they should give up their quest to outlaw abortion and instead work towards this end.

Read Full Post »

Abortion – Part 1

 

Abortion laws have been much in the news here in Texas.  We have passed a restrictive sonogram bill requiring all women who wish an abortion to have a vaginal sonogram taken with a 24 hour waiting period afterwards (2 hours for those who live more than 100 miles away from an abortion provider) before they can have the abortion.  While they do not have to look at the picture or listen to the fetal heartbeat the doctor is required to go into detail exactly where the fetus is at in its development based on the sonogram images.   

The only exceptions to the doctor’s description of fetal development are in cases of rape, incest or if the fetus is deformed.  Apparently though the women will still have to have the sonogram in those cases as there are no exemptions from that requirement. 

In a further attempt to restrict abortion the great state of Texas is attempting to put a provision to the state’s Medicaid Women’s Health Program (WHP) that would eliminate funding health service providers that also provide abortion services – in other words Planned Parenthood.  Planned Parenthood, by the way, just happens to be the chief provider of health services for poor women in the state and has always received funding for this service.  There are not enough clinics and easily available hospitals who can take up the slack if Planned Parenthood is excluded from providing these health services. 

To make it even better they have added a rather nasty provision that if Planned Parenthood successfully challenges this provision.  If Planned Parenthood sues and wins then no funds will be provided to the WHP program – depriving all poor women of important health services. 

This program serves over 90,000 women in Texas who make less than $1,679 per month and provides them screenings for cancer, hypertension, anemia, sexually transmitted infections, contraceptive information and care and is also often these women’s primary source of medical care.   Planned Parenthood serves about 40% of these 90,000 women in this program. 

Now this is just in the state of Texas.  Other states are enacting similar laws and even at the national level there is a huge debate over whether to continue providing funds to Planned Parenthood even though NONE of the federal money goes for abortion services. 

Abortion is and always has been a controversial issue – one that seems to be heating up again.  It is also a large issue with many facets to it.  Therefore I plan to spend at least two blogs and probably three on this issue – dealing with my own thoughts about abortion and then the various ethical and legal aspects involved.   Some of this material is a reworking of blogs I have done on my wife’s Talks Many Moons blog.  Some is original.  Of course I consider all of it interesting, insightful, meaningful, accurate, well written, and classic. 

But that’s just me.

Here I am going to lay out my reasons for being pro choice.  First though let me state flat out a few facts. 

1)       Abortion does kill a life

2)      The fetus while totally dependent on the women is not the same as a women’s body.

I wanted to get these out of the way since in my discussions with the anti choice side they quite often try to reduce my reasonings to either a claim that the fetus is not alive or that it is not a separate entity.   Instead of arguing against what I have said they argue against what they think I have said and reduce my reasonings to one that they have stock arguments against. 

Let me also state that I tend to call myself pro choice/pro life.  I do so because while I believe abortion should be an option for women and that decision should be left to the individual woman, I do not advocate it.  I do not go out and tell pregnant women that they should have one because they cannot afford another child, because another child would be inconvenient, etc.  In fact, I would prefer adoption to abortion whenever possible.  Or to avoiding unwanted pregnancy.

I would like abortions to be rare – as rare as possible.  It is an uncomfortable decision to abort because it is killing a life and that should be done only after due consideration.  However I do know that there are occasions when abortion is the correct decision.  When the fetus is deformed so badly that it cannot live or have any sort of quality of life, when the life or health of the mother is in jeopardy, in cases of rape and incest, and, during the first three months, even if it is a decision of pure economics (although there are effective ways to reduce this decisions – which, ironically, many on the anti choice/pro life side oppose).

Anyway – on to my reasonings for supporting abortion. 

The pro life movement likes to claim that there is no difference between a fetus and a baby. They are fond of saying that life begins at conception.

That is true.

They say that the life of a fetus is as fully human as a new born baby, a teen, a middle aged person, or an old man, that there is no difference between a fetus and any of the other cases.

That is not true.

There are two basic differences that the pro life people either overlook or ignore. The first is that the woman and her fetus cannot live independently of the mother. The fetus is a physical part of mother, something very different from a newborn baby.  Yes, the fetus has separate DNA from the mother but it is the mother’s body that provides the nutrients the fetus needs to live and grow, it is the mother’s body that provides the safe and nurturing environment to the fetus, it is the mother’s body that carries out the waste products – it is the mother’s body and the mother’s body only that provides all that the fetus needs. 

A sister, aunt, or stranger can take just as good if not better care of the baby. However they cannot do the same for a fetus. No matter how much outside help a pregnant woman may receive she is the one by far bearing the greatest impact in regards to health, both physical and emotional(as I can readily attest from the personal experience trying to support Dindy during her two pregnancies). That is why birth is such a clear demarcation point. The baby can be reared by someone else.

A mother who is unable to care for her baby – for health reasons, financial, emotional, or any other reason can give the baby up for adoption and have someone else take care of it. The fetus cannot be given up in such a manner, which means that any health risks, financial risks or any other issue must be borne by the woman until the fetus develops enough.

Which brings us to the second difference – Personhood. Is an eight week old fetus a person in the same way that a baby is? Does it have conscious awareness of itself, of its environment? No it does not.

A fetus has the potential to grow and develop into a human. But every child has the potential to become the President, but does that mean we treat each like the President? To equate a potential and elevate it over an actual person, the mother, is wrong.   I believe that this is why the great majority of people when faced with a choice between the life of the mother or the life of the fetus choose the mother.

I can’t remember where I got this from and my apologizes to that person for being so forgetful – but imagine you are in a building and a huge fire breaks out.  There are two rooms in front of you.  One has a case housing 100 embryo’s.  The other room has a 60 year old woman.  You only have time to save one or the other.  Do you save the 60 year old woman or the 100 embryo’s. 

I imagine that most would save the 60 year old woman without very little if any hesitation.  This highlights the fact that much as the pro choice people might wish we already value the life of a person born over those who are not.  The only question really is where do we draw that line – when does the life of the unborn become as important as the born. 

For myself, I believe that we should recognize that as the fetus grows and develops it is starting to develop to that same point of independent existence as a newborn baby  has.   Especially as it starts to develop an awareness of its surroundings and  an ability to consciously feel pain. That is why I support a sliding scale version of abortion rights.

During the first trimester it is totally at the discretion of the women. She should be able to have an abortion no questions asked. The second trimester would have more restrictions – emotional and physical well being – and the final trimester an abortion would be performed only if necessary to save the life of the mother. I am open to the exact cutoffs but strongly support this concept.

As for rights, they apply to individuals. Can a fetus be defined as a full individual given that it is totally dependent of the woman’s body and only that woman’s body?   That makes this issue different than that of the elderly or handicapped.  

Given the pro life people’s position that a fetus is just as important and has all the rights as a person already born then it would only be logical to start assigning the fetus lawyers during those times when a decision has to be made on whether the mother dies or the fetus.  Currently in those rare occasions it is left up to the mother and her family and doctor – and is usually decided in favor of the mother. 

But if both lives are equal and have the same rights to life then this is not a given.  Someone would need to represent the fetus’s rights in a court of law and due process would need to be followed before terminating its life.  If this were to ever come about can you imagine the uproar that would follow should a judge or jury decide that the mother should die so that the fetus can live even over the objections of the mother and her family? 

Further the idea of a sliding scale (I seem to be stuck on that phrase for some reason) of rights is not new. Do 2 year olds have the same rights that an adult do? Do they have the same rights of association, speech, religion and so forth as an adult?  If so, then forget parenting because it would be impossible.

While I have sympathy for the Pro Life position they are greatly oversimplifying the reality. They, and we on the Pro-choice side, would be greatly better off promoting policies and practices that reduce unwanted pregnancies – mainly birth control.

My next blog will discuss whether anti abortion laws really do reduce abortions and what  is the best way to actually do so.

Read Full Post »