I’ve been writing this blog weekly for over a month now, and I’ve yet to explain my Pro-Life stance, specifically on abortion. I mentioned I would at some point, so I figure now is as good a time as any. If it wasn’t this, I’d be pounding my keyboard angrily complaining about the loss of 1st Amendment rights in this country. *sigh*
Just to be unpredictable, I’m NOT going to use theology or religion in my argument. Yeah, I bet you weren’t expecting that, were you? I’m full of surprises.
If I look at the (albeit “controversial”), definition of life out on wikipedia, I see 7 basic items: cellularly structured, requires/uses energy, grows, adapts, responds, reproduces and is able to remain consistent. This is “controversial” because no one seems to want to put a stake in the ground. Maybe people are concerned about making mistakes and not classifying things appropriately. Seems like science worries that it’s defining something using undefinable terms. Yeah, I had fun reading that abstract (Too cheap to actually buy the report). People worry about fringe items like viruses and AIs. Are they alive? Do they have rights? Yeah, people are asking and waxing philosophic on these questions.
So what does it mean to be alive? If you look at a fertilized human zygote, embryo or fetus, does it meet any definition of life?
Does it require energy? It has to attached itself to the uterine wall for nutrition, so … Check.
Is it cellular in nature? Check.
Does it grow? Check.
Does it adapt? Not sure when this starts, but eventually certainly does.
Does it reproduce? It has cellular reproduction as it grows and changes, if we’re talking sexual reproduction, even out of womb children aren’t capable until a certain age. So, kinda-Check.
Does it respond to stimuli? Not sure when this starts, but eventually yes. So, kinda-Check.
Does it stay cohesive? Check.
So not a complete home run, certainly, but all of these come online during the gestation. It’s just a matter of when.
So, why not wait to declare a human person until all items are met? Let me respond with another question. Why does the Migratory Boat Treaty and Lacey Acts protect bald eagle eggs?
It’s “not” a bald eagle. The egg doesn’t fly around pooping on cars. We don’t have images of eagle eggs painted on the back of redneck trucks.
Sure, bald eagles are an endangered species, but the egg isn’t an eagle yet if we use the definition of when does a human become a human (by pro-choice standards).
So, why can’t I have a bald eagle egg omelet?
Now, I really don’t want a bald eagle omelet. I barely eat chicken eggs. But, the point I’m trying to make here is that the fertilized egg, if left alone, will eventually result in an eagle as we visualize them today. It, for all intents and purposes, is an eagle and is treated and protected as such.
So, why don’t we view zygotes, embryos and fetuses the same way? Regardless of whether you believe life begins at conception, the mere fact that this is a human person in the early stages of development should provide some level of protection.
When discussing this view, I’ve gotten a few interesting challenges. One of which is: “If I were to put the tissue on a petri dish, it wouldn’t survive”. Well, if I placed a newborn baby on a lab counter without food and physical protection from the elements, it would die as well. The only difference is the newborn probably would last a bit longer. It would also communicate more through crying. I doubt abortion would be allowable if the embryo or fetus could scream.
I also feel this way about lobster restaurants. No one would ever pick one out of the tank if they were cute, fluffy and screamed when placed in the boiling water. We humans are weird this way.
Now, the other argument I’ve heard is whether the “tissue” is viable outside the mother’s womb.
THIS is what really scares me. The idea of “viability” coming into play. I get nervous when I hear it’s ok for someone to make a decision about life based on “viability”.
What is meant by viable? In this context, it’s a statement of whether the child would survive outside the womb (which starts around week 22ish, I know someone will correct me here). But, there’s another side.
Amniocentesis is a procedure which can detect chromosomal abnormalities (such as Down’s Syndrome) or other disorders (e.g. spina bifida). The linked article calls out 200,000 procedures a year (not sure if that is worldwide or just in the US). The mean abortion rate (across multiple studies) for those found to have Down’s Syndrome is 67%.
Wow. It makes me sad to think people are aborted just because they have developmental issues. I'm not trying to judge here, I can only imagine the difficulty with raising and caring for a child with birth defect or condition. I just can't help but wonder about where the line is. Who decides whose life is worthwhile?
At what point do we start crossing into aborting due to other birth defects? When will we hit a line we won’t cross? We have a VERY bad track record when deciding who has a right to live and who should die. Eugenics, when taken to it’s farthest extreme, is what leads to Nazi death camps.
My other big fear is what are the next logical steps.
Most people I speak with will tell me that don’t like or want abortion (even if they support a woman’s right to have one). If “reproductive rights” advocates succeed, and abortion becomes an acceptable and normalized form of birth control, what does that mean for us 10, 50, 100 years from now?
Oh, and before you start to argue about how abortion will never become normalized, consider the recent case against a Washington florist who refused to make an arrangement for a same-sex couple's wedding. What did the Washington Supreme Court decision say? They said laws provide “broader societal purpose”. Meaning, it isn’t about the explicit nature of the law, but the implicit reasoning behind the law. Making a law provides (or even forces) societal changes. Making abortion a “right” effectively uses the law to make a societal change in how abortion is viewed and treated. Granted, I’m not a lawyer, so feel free to argue with me.
Going back to the longterm view, when will the first man challenge child support in court? When will “her decision” to have a baby turn into “her responsibility to provide for the child”? When will the argument of “I offered to pay for the abortion and she refused” become a legitimate defense?
Let’s look at it through a different lens. When will the mantra of “If you can’t feed’em don’t breed’em” turn into policy? When will subsidies be capped for households who need help? Can’t feed them? Well, I guess you should have thought about that before you had a kid. Once abortion becomes acceptable in the mainstream, this isn’t an illogical leap to make.
Is this what we want for our future? I surely don’t. Which is why I believe we need to redraw the abortion line and act like we never stepped over it in the first place.
This is a veritable Pandora's Box of "we don't want to go there".
Now, before all you upset feminists burn my Vagina Card, let me make a disclaimer.
I don’t want to see women stuck in situations they don’t know how to recover from. I don’t want to “force” anyone into anything. In my opinion, abortion is just an after effect of unprepared women being used, undervalued and thrown away.
I want women to have choices. I want them to have GOOD choices. I want them to understand how NOT to get pregnant. I want to help women get into positions where they can take care of themselves and handle what life throws at them. I want to help women understand how not to date total douchebags.
Instead of pouring tax money into “reproductive rights” policies that provide abortions, let’s spend our money, time and energy on building a society where women have more opportunities and success. Let’s build a society that doesn’t penalize mothers (side note - want to know what is one factor in the gender pay gap? Time away from work, which hits mothers hard).
And, while we are at it, let’s teach men how to truly value women and enable them to be better fathers (paternity leave, anyone?).
Let's eliminate the root causes, not the children.
No comments:
Post a Comment