Thoughts on Abortion

by

MbC

(Written August 1999)





The topic of abortion is a difficult one to address. Surely there are few other things that can affect a person's life (or death) so deeply. Much has been said on this subject, and much more WILL be said before anything approaching concensus has been reached. Even with the recent rulings of the Supreme Court, the storm has not abated, the answers to difficult questions appear ever more unclear.

Yet why the insistence on separating pro-choice and pro-life?

I am pro-choice, personally. But I do not mean that in its normally connotated sense. Rather, it means that I believe that people have a right to make decisions... and then have an obligation to live with the consequences that come about as a result of those decisions. That is why I say that I am pro-choice, and that is why I believe that, with some exceptions (which I will address), "pro-choice" in its truest sense MUST be pro-life.

If a man and a woman choose to engage in sexual relations, they choose to accept the attendant possible repercussions and responsibilities. Or at least, they SHOULD be choosing that. Bottom line: a person engaging in such "adult" activity should NOT be allowed to act like a child when dealing with the possible responsibility of a pregnancy.

This means that a person who willfully engages in sexual relations should be willing to carry a resultant pregnancy to term.

There are many opposing views to this point, but frankly most of them are not substantive or logical.

Many will point out the following: that pregnancies are a great trauma, that it is better not to have a child than to have it be born into an uncaring environment or one wherein the parent(s) is(are) unable to care for the child, that they severely curtail the future possibilities of those who choose to complete the pregnancies, that too many children are a cause of world overcrowding. Let us examine each of these for a moment.

First, the fact is that an unexpected pregnancy IS traumatic. It is a source of a sudden increase in responsibility, with the scope of a person's power suddenly enlarging to include others. This is never a "comfortable" proposition. But then again, what is the alternative? Abortions have been shown to be traumatic as well, with people who elect to have one or multiple abortions being far more likely to require psychiatric care than those who choose to shoulder the "traumatic" responsibility of actually bearing the child. Indeed, studies point to the fact that people who choose to carry pregnancies to term develop into, on the whole, more well-rounded and able individuals than those who seek the "easy" fix of an abortion... which "easy" choice often leads to severe, long-lasting emotional/intellecutal scars in addition to the pain and discomfort involved in the actual mechanics of the abortion process. In sum, to say that a person should favor abortion over term pregnancy "to avoid trauma (discomfort)" is like saying "I'd rather slam my head in the door than my finger because I don't want to hurt myself."

Next, let us move to the next point raised: that a child is better off being aborted than being born into an environment where proper emotional and physical care is unavailable. Whether this is a true statement or not is largely academic when we consider the huge number of couples who are unable to have children of their own and are waiting eagerly for a baby to adopt. If the child is going to be born into an inadequate environment, rather than terminating a human life, that life should be given to someone who IS willing and able to nurture and love it. Adoption is an option rarely mentioned, in spite of the fact that it is often the most sensible and (all around) fair and caring choice. Again, saying that the child will HAVE to live in a bad environment is patently false: it completely ignores the alternative of giving the child up for adoption and allowing it to have a good life in a home where the baby is viewed not as an inconvenience (which viewpoint is a tragedy), but as a privilege or even a miracle.

Which brings us to the matter that carrying the pregnancy to term is a HUGE inconvenience.

No argument there. It IS a gigantic difficulty, an emotional and phyical hardship. But is that necessarily a "bad" thing in this instance? One of the greatest problems in today's culture is that society is leaning evermore toward a philosophy of action without consequences. We look at those consequences as things that CAN be avoided, and so because we CAN avoid them, we do so. But if we strip the consequence from the action, there is no chance for personal growth, no opportunity for moral or intellectual progress. Let us say we had a baby girl whom we feared would put her hand in the fire and burn herself, thus causing herself great pain. So we hit upon an idea: sever her nerves so that she has no feelings in that hand.

But would that fix the problem? Of course not. It would have the opposite effect: the baby would still stick her hand in the fire. She would be burned, and the fact that the pain was minimized (or disguised) would not negate the hideous trauma she had undergone. She would be likely to continue putting her hand in the fire, worsening her condition beyond what would have happened had we just allowed her to suffer the natural consequence of her actions.

This is not to suggest that we allow our children to go out and commit mistakes "so they can learn." We watch, we try to teach them, we hope for the best. But we do not enclose them in plastic bubbles or take away their opportunities for growth by shielding them from the consequences of their decisions.

And as for the last argument, that of "population superdensity," again, the best evidence suggests that the world is nowhere NEAR reaching a population saturation. Indeed, there have been studies that indicated that with proper resource utilization, the world's entire current population could be fit on the land mass occupied by the United States of America and not suffer a dearth of food or water or shelter. This argument is, again, sadly lacking in factual reasoning.

Now, previously I stated that there ARE certain exceptions. Again, if pro-choice means that you live with the consequences of your decisions, this would exempt rape circumstances. Women who are raped did not "choose" to be sexually assaulted. A case may be made that their actions (e.g., choice of dress, location, activity being engaged in) constitute a "choice" to be raped. I, personally, do not believe there is much substance to this. But regardless of whether one believes that a woman's choices so influence those around her, it would be ridiculous to say that a woman has sat down and literally, sanely, thoughtfully, planned to be assaulted and impregnated. She did not, therefore, choose this occurrence. Should a pregnancy result, she may, in my opinion, choose to abort it. This is a tender and difficult decision, one that should be left up to the woman who will, hopefully, have the aid and support of family, friends, wise clergy, and/or professional counseling. But since she did not choose to move down a path that would result thus, it would be unjust to make a decision FOR her, locking her unfairly into a life she did not elect and has not had any control over.

And on a parallel note, should a woman CHOOSE to engage in sexual activity, become pregnant, and then discover that the resultant pregnancy is a danger to her life, she might with justice choose to abort the child. The argument that abortion is murder is negated here to the same extent that a true need for self-defense negates the charge of murder. One life cannot with impunity be traded for another. Again, this is a choice that should be faced carefully and with the thoughtful assistance of loving friends and family.

This choice does NOT extend justly to the instance where the fetus is found to have a defect of some kind. The argument that the fetus will be a drain on society and will not give anything in return is spurious. History is liberally sprinkled with people who overcame personal handicaps (be they mental or physical) they were born with in order to become great and wonderful contributors to humanities triumphs. Even should they not "change the world," they can certainly give something to others. Some of the most wonderful men and women I have ever been privileged to work with have been severely retarded. They have not been able to add or walk correctly or in some cases so much as form a complete word. But they have been able to give and receive love, to make the world around them a better place by their presence. They have made ME a better person, and the world has profited by that contribution to me, as one life inexorably touches another.

All of this is not meant to provide any kind of "easy answer." This area of thought is gigantic in stature, scope, and importance. But all too often turning to an answer that is "easy" means a forfeiture of an opportunity that is perhaps not as obvious - one that may require more effort to arrive at - but far more worthwhile.

Pro-choice? Pro-life? They are the same. We make choices. The world suffers when we seek to avoid the responsibilities attendant therein. Enoblement and human triumph are impossible where no one is willing to stand by decisions made and struggle through difficulties that result to achieve something great.