![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Abortion
Yeah, it's political. No, it's actually not a rant. Consider it a position paper, if you like, of my personal views on an issue which is not at all simple. In fact, I consider the entire idea to be one of the most complex moral problems on the modern landscape.
However, knowing that it's a sensitive subject for a lot of people, I cut. Read if you like, comment if you like. I'd be interested in hearing other people's opinions on the subject.
...what I mean by pro-choice is that I defend a woman's right to pursue a safe, legal abortion at any time, without having to ask anyone's permission, or undergo any sort of waiting period, 'options counseling', or registration. I believe that abortion services should be widely available, very affordable, and as confidential as we can possibly make them. That is my position.
This is my reasoning.
First, it should be noted that I do not 'like' abortion. There is no doubt that, in cases where the abortion is not considered medically necessary, the fetus the woman is carrying will, if left alone, become a human being. Whether it /is/, while in the womb, already to be considered a human being is largely a point I don't concern myself with. It's semantics, useful for legal wrangling and the attempt to either rile or surpress guilt over the action, but I don't believe there's a person out there who isn't aware that the aborted fetus was, in fact, a human in potentia who never got to be born. And I sure as hell don't think most of the women carrying that fetus don't realize that, and that the knowledge does not affect them.
So, some might say, you know full well that this is a little person, and yet you're saying that you support the right for a mother to kill them off whenever she likes...to put it in the most slanted way possible. To which, I say...yes. While it's in the womb, I support the right of a woman to terminate any pregnancy. I do not /like/ that option. I also support comprehensive sex education at every level of school, plentiful and low-priced (or free) birth control for anyone with no questions asked, and a system for adoptions that protects and facilitates birth parents, adoptive parents, and children. But I know that even if these options were all available and worked at the level that I would most prefer, there would always be situations where someone has an unwanted pregnancy and, for whatever reason, cannot or does not wish to carry it to term for adoption.
What do we do in those cases? When it comes down to it, there really are only two options at our present level of technology: you either force the mother to carry it to term, or you allow her to terminate. There are obvious problems with the first choice, practicality being the one that leaps to mind first. A woman cannot, without difficulty, be watched constantly. There will always be people who are willing to help her out with a coathanger, there are herbal mixes which may induce miscarriages, there's the abuse of alcohol, violence, drugs, and a variety of other ways to try and self-terminate a pregnancy. Most of these are significantly threatening to the woman, as well, but it hasn't stopped the really determined ones. And, I will ask, what does it say about a woman that she is willing to risk her own death in order to get rid of an unwanted pregnancy? You can argue from desperation, selfishness, or sheer panic, but either way you go, I have to wonder: Do I want a woman that desperate not to give birth to be forced to carry and raise a child? Will this person be a good parent? Is this person mentally, financially, and emotionally capable of raising a child?
What happens to the children that we would require to be born? The lucky ones, under my ideal system, would be adopted, assuming that all the family members involved treated the situation rationally. ...yeah, after you finish laughing, let's talk about the unlucky ones.
I strongly believe that parenthood is one of the most serious committments that anyone should make. It is not a 'rite of passage' or something that everyone should be doing to 'be an adult'. You're taking nearly full responsibilty for an undeveloped human being who, at various times, will be the most amazing and infuriating person that you've likely ever met. You are agreeing to feed them, clothe them, shelter them, teach them, protect them, monitor them, discipline them, socialize them, and love them for the rest of your natural life. To my mind, it should always be an informed, consensual decision, undertaken with--if not full understanding (does any non-parent really know what they're getting into?)--at least with enthusiastic optimism. I do not believe that an atmosphere of coercion can ever produce a good, loving parent, or that force is a good way to start this very intimate relationship between a parent and a child.
Children should not hear, "You were a mistake," or "I never wanted you in the first place." I believe that, as a society, we should do everything in our power to make sure that every birth is wanted, and I believe that free and full access to abortion services is an indispensible part (but not the ONLY part) of making that happen.
To condense that rambling screed down to a simple justification: I believe that the quality of life that comes after birth is, in the balance, more important that the protection of life within the womb. I do not want children born unwanted to parents who will neglect and abuse them, and I consider the fact that a mother is willing to terminate a pregnancy to be a pretty good indication that she should not be raising the child in question. It would be nice to say that all women and men would have access to and use birth control to prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place, but that's not going to happen, even if you were leaving free pills and condoms out on street corners. It would be nice to say that all pregnancies could be carried to term and unwanted babies adopted out in a completely confidential arrangement to a family who desperately wants them, but that's also not realistic (especially for minorities, when the majority of people wanting to adopt want caucasian babies). In order to protect both children and women, I believe that abortion is necessary to defend and support.
And before anyone asks: Yes, I fully support the right of any woman to carry a pregnancy to term, regardless of what anyone else wishes her to do. I have never supported mandatory abortion policies, and I never will. I also fully support the right of a dam or sire of a pregnancy to terminate parental rights in a final, binding way with a written, legal contract. I do not support dams or sires who have terminated their rights in such a way in any attempt to later reclaim those rights, unless it can be proven that coercion or nonconsent was involved in signing the contract. Parenthood should be considered on basis of committment, not genetics.
One may notice that I do not address men's rights in this position paper. This is because men's rights do not change my basic position...I think that, as long as women are considered by society to have the burden of monitoring and using birth control, and considered to have the burden of parenting, women should have the final say in whether they, personally, will carry a pregnancy to term. As technology progresses, this will become a more complicated issue, but for now, I am firm.
However, knowing that it's a sensitive subject for a lot of people, I cut. Read if you like, comment if you like. I'd be interested in hearing other people's opinions on the subject.
...what I mean by pro-choice is that I defend a woman's right to pursue a safe, legal abortion at any time, without having to ask anyone's permission, or undergo any sort of waiting period, 'options counseling', or registration. I believe that abortion services should be widely available, very affordable, and as confidential as we can possibly make them. That is my position.
This is my reasoning.
First, it should be noted that I do not 'like' abortion. There is no doubt that, in cases where the abortion is not considered medically necessary, the fetus the woman is carrying will, if left alone, become a human being. Whether it /is/, while in the womb, already to be considered a human being is largely a point I don't concern myself with. It's semantics, useful for legal wrangling and the attempt to either rile or surpress guilt over the action, but I don't believe there's a person out there who isn't aware that the aborted fetus was, in fact, a human in potentia who never got to be born. And I sure as hell don't think most of the women carrying that fetus don't realize that, and that the knowledge does not affect them.
So, some might say, you know full well that this is a little person, and yet you're saying that you support the right for a mother to kill them off whenever she likes...to put it in the most slanted way possible. To which, I say...yes. While it's in the womb, I support the right of a woman to terminate any pregnancy. I do not /like/ that option. I also support comprehensive sex education at every level of school, plentiful and low-priced (or free) birth control for anyone with no questions asked, and a system for adoptions that protects and facilitates birth parents, adoptive parents, and children. But I know that even if these options were all available and worked at the level that I would most prefer, there would always be situations where someone has an unwanted pregnancy and, for whatever reason, cannot or does not wish to carry it to term for adoption.
What do we do in those cases? When it comes down to it, there really are only two options at our present level of technology: you either force the mother to carry it to term, or you allow her to terminate. There are obvious problems with the first choice, practicality being the one that leaps to mind first. A woman cannot, without difficulty, be watched constantly. There will always be people who are willing to help her out with a coathanger, there are herbal mixes which may induce miscarriages, there's the abuse of alcohol, violence, drugs, and a variety of other ways to try and self-terminate a pregnancy. Most of these are significantly threatening to the woman, as well, but it hasn't stopped the really determined ones. And, I will ask, what does it say about a woman that she is willing to risk her own death in order to get rid of an unwanted pregnancy? You can argue from desperation, selfishness, or sheer panic, but either way you go, I have to wonder: Do I want a woman that desperate not to give birth to be forced to carry and raise a child? Will this person be a good parent? Is this person mentally, financially, and emotionally capable of raising a child?
What happens to the children that we would require to be born? The lucky ones, under my ideal system, would be adopted, assuming that all the family members involved treated the situation rationally. ...yeah, after you finish laughing, let's talk about the unlucky ones.
I strongly believe that parenthood is one of the most serious committments that anyone should make. It is not a 'rite of passage' or something that everyone should be doing to 'be an adult'. You're taking nearly full responsibilty for an undeveloped human being who, at various times, will be the most amazing and infuriating person that you've likely ever met. You are agreeing to feed them, clothe them, shelter them, teach them, protect them, monitor them, discipline them, socialize them, and love them for the rest of your natural life. To my mind, it should always be an informed, consensual decision, undertaken with--if not full understanding (does any non-parent really know what they're getting into?)--at least with enthusiastic optimism. I do not believe that an atmosphere of coercion can ever produce a good, loving parent, or that force is a good way to start this very intimate relationship between a parent and a child.
Children should not hear, "You were a mistake," or "I never wanted you in the first place." I believe that, as a society, we should do everything in our power to make sure that every birth is wanted, and I believe that free and full access to abortion services is an indispensible part (but not the ONLY part) of making that happen.
To condense that rambling screed down to a simple justification: I believe that the quality of life that comes after birth is, in the balance, more important that the protection of life within the womb. I do not want children born unwanted to parents who will neglect and abuse them, and I consider the fact that a mother is willing to terminate a pregnancy to be a pretty good indication that she should not be raising the child in question. It would be nice to say that all women and men would have access to and use birth control to prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place, but that's not going to happen, even if you were leaving free pills and condoms out on street corners. It would be nice to say that all pregnancies could be carried to term and unwanted babies adopted out in a completely confidential arrangement to a family who desperately wants them, but that's also not realistic (especially for minorities, when the majority of people wanting to adopt want caucasian babies). In order to protect both children and women, I believe that abortion is necessary to defend and support.
And before anyone asks: Yes, I fully support the right of any woman to carry a pregnancy to term, regardless of what anyone else wishes her to do. I have never supported mandatory abortion policies, and I never will. I also fully support the right of a dam or sire of a pregnancy to terminate parental rights in a final, binding way with a written, legal contract. I do not support dams or sires who have terminated their rights in such a way in any attempt to later reclaim those rights, unless it can be proven that coercion or nonconsent was involved in signing the contract. Parenthood should be considered on basis of committment, not genetics.
One may notice that I do not address men's rights in this position paper. This is because men's rights do not change my basic position...I think that, as long as women are considered by society to have the burden of monitoring and using birth control, and considered to have the burden of parenting, women should have the final say in whether they, personally, will carry a pregnancy to term. As technology progresses, this will become a more complicated issue, but for now, I am firm.
no subject
There is a time when abortion is pretty clearly not killing a baby, and there is a time when abortion is pretty obviously killing a baby. Therefore, Abortions should happen as early as possible if an abortion is happening. The time of the abortion is pretty important because if we say 'going to be a person' counts as 'a person' then basically all forms of preventive measures must be destroyed immediately.
I don't really support abortion in some instances, especially late-term abortions. If someone is waiting until week 40, then it sounds like it's a bout of nervousness more than a serious desire to not have a kid. I'm not sure if these late-term abortions happen because of lines or price issues (perhaps they should be made cheaper so more offensive abortions are made less of an option) but if you wait till the old third trimester, even the second is suspicious (being the grey area, I suspect) then I think someone's abusing the abortion option.
I agree with cpip's disapproval of abortions out of quality of life issues. Especially in America, where a crummy lifestyle here is pretty damn good. Presumably, if a child even a single moment of positivity, that is better than not having any moments of all.
There isn't enough 'science' out there to decide when it's okay and when it's not okay, which is probably where a lot of the problems picking a 'side' lie, but if we're assuming the child is alive from the start (as you suggested) then at best abortion is mercy-killing, at worse downright murder.
People have said abortions shouldn't be okay even in terms of 'rape and the mother will die' because 'it isn't the child's fault'. I'm kinder than this, since I think there's a time when the child isn't a child, and a time when the child is a child. If the child was always a child, then even if the mother was in some danger, then abortion would merely ensure one death (presumably one that has more time to live, as a mother has had a fair bit of time on earth already. Pretty cruel reason, but quantitatively, the child is a newer product).
Let's not forget that there's plenty of contraceptives for both men and women. It's the responsibility of both to use them if they don't want a baby. As everybody's said, that's the best option, but clearly it doesn't always happen. Do we 'punish' them by denying them an abortion because they weren't careful?
Worded this way, it's a little tricky because for one thing, the baby shouldn't be a punishment but if they are denied formal abortion (ignoring coat hangers for the moment), it certainly seems like a punishment! Wouldn't people who are actually responsible enough to use the contraceptives the ones who, ironically, would be the best parents?
There isn't really an answer to this because it's paradoxical. Any argument here would have difficulty finding another evidence to prove its side and disprove the other. For example, I could say that people who might want abortions might be better parents than they realize, or they might learn how to be good parents through the process of raising a kid--few people want to ruin a child's life, I'd reason. But then you'd point out other instances. Neither case really works out.
But frankly, there -are- contraceptives. Sometimes they don't work, sure, but it's a 99 percent success rate if both people are responsible and, really, it's pretty obvious if a guy is not wearing a condom, right? It's not like they are going to be able to trick you (again, assuming consensual). People should think about baby possibilities before having sex. Even if they had a couple of beers. (I typically don't support people being not responsible for what they do when they're drunk).
And with the 'coathanger' methods, sure this is more dangerous than legal abortion, but then again, murder is more personally dangerous than supporting the death penalty and I'm not in favor of that either. Since we're assuming the child is a child instantly, it's murder no matter what (hench why I think we need to consider the timeliness of abortions).
no subject
Basically, I agree with the moderate governmental stance (though of course it varies) of it being okay in the first trimesters, but not the third. It seems the safest all around, and gives plenty of time for abortions too. Until we have more data, we can't really be sure on a perfect stance.
Daddies might not be put in PHYSICAL danger when they impregnate a lady, but they'll have to pay for child support if the direct responsibility of fatherhood isn't placed upon them. Obviously we can't kill every one in a hundred dads to simulate this, but well, men do have to put themselves in dangerous situations that women don't have to too. They aren't related to childbirth, but it sort of balances the scales.
no subject
I don't know if doctors call it an abortion, but that's exactly what it is -- because it's a choice of "one life, or none."
And... I really dislike being unpleasant, but the whole child support thing comes off somewhat hollow against renal failure, seizures, coma, and death. I don't think it's a good absolute argument. (Having a good relationship with one's lover, so that the people affected can talk about the situation, support, medical risks, etc., is the best option, of course. But there is no way to legislate having a good relationship.)
I will clip certain colorful tales about ambulance rides and terrified nurses (and me being highly tipsy from the Mag-Sulfate IV), and just give a couple of Googled URLs.
http://www.emedicine.com/med/topic1905.htm: Preeclampsia occurs in 6-8% of all pregnancies. ... Preeclampsia is the second leading cause of maternal mortality, accounting for 12-18% of pregnancy-related maternal deaths.
http://www.emedicine.com/emerg/topic480.htm: Preeclampsia is one of the most common causes of perinatal morbidity and mortality, resulting in an estimated 35-300 deaths per 1000 births, depending on neonatal support capabilities of the hospital delivering care. This mortality rate is almost double that of normotensive pregnancies.