The following is a song that I think of when I think of my daughter. The video is from youtube so I apologize for the misspelling of the word lose as loose.
I don't like the term pro life. Having people live is of course a positive thing, but more importantly I would rather people not have abortions. This opinion is coming from someone who as of 7 years ago considered himself pro choice. I have also always considered myself to be a social liberal. My philosophy on being a social liberal is that if what an individual is doing is not affecting another person then leave them alone. This includes but is not limited to supporting gay marriage and legalizing marijuana.
Let's start by identifying why I was pro choice. I believed that abortion was not a good thing, but it wasn't for me to say whether not another person should have one. However, I don't believe many people want to go through the physical and emotional pain of an abortion if it could be avoided. A former friend had told me about an abortion that she had over 30 years ago and she still imagined what the child would have looked and acted like. I can't imagine how difficult it is to live with this feeling.
What changed my mind? During the development of my only child there were a variety of reasons why it was an at risk pregnancy. This meant that from the early stages of her development before we even knew my daughter was a she we watched her in the womb via sonograms. As she grew and swam as I called it, I felt a connection right then with her. She was growing, but she was and is a person.
Imagine you have a close family member who is in a comatose state where they are unable to communicate with you. You have been told by the doctors as long as they get the nutrients from the I.V.'s and are given proper care; they will come out of the coma and have a fruitful life. Besides the I.V.'s imagine there are additional tubes connected to your family member. Now let's imagine that for some reason you decide that you no longer want to take care of this family member. Rather than finding someone else to step in and help care for them you decide to pull out the I.V.'s and the tubes. Your family member dies and you are charged with murder. Lets switch the situation to a child in the womb. In my opinion, it is no different.
Notice that I have made a concerted effort to refer to the one having the abortion as a person and not a woman. I know that of course women are the ones who carry a child so they are the ones having the abortions. To me though this is not a woman's or man's issue. It is a human issue. It is every human's responsibility to make life as comfortable for a woman carrying an unwanted pregnancy to full term. This includes simplifying the adoption process as access to quality prenatal care. I believe also that a DNA system should be set up so all men's information is accessible regarding the child. This means that the man will be held responsible for his participation in bringing the child into the world and also this solves the problem of having some men identified as parents of children that aren't actually theirs. There are privacy issues here which need to be worked out, but it is important that both the man and the woman are given help as well as being responsible for their actions.
I know this is a volatile issue and I am just stating my opinion. I hope my writing will encourage others to look into this issue more deeply. I don't anticipate changing tons of people's minds, but do feel the responsibility to bring up issues that others will find intriguing.
My views sure were intensified after giving birth to my son. Like I said, I can't imagine ever having an abortion, and living with my decision. But then again, we're talking about a crazy vegetarian chick who rescues bugs. ;)
ReplyDeleteI basically agree with you. The key is for policies to be implemented that will help reduce the number of abortions. On all political issues, I try to be as practical as possible. Too often, people get caught up in philosophic / theological arguments. Since most people - whether they label themselves pro-life or pro-choice - don't want abortions to occur, why don't we all focus on trying to reduce them.
ReplyDeleteA very thoughtful and well-considered opinion, a viewpoint that I myself do not have on the issue.
ReplyDeleteI am anti-abortion and pro-choice at the same time. I think that without forcing every decision regarding life and death to be a matter of murder or legislation, we can develop a culture where life is more valued.
Instead of saying that there is never any reason for abortion, why don't we raise a respect for life that involves forethought and consideration (e.g. prevention rather than abortion), while still recognises that there are times and situations where people may consider an abortion the best of a difficult choice.
Just from reading this article, I think that we seem to agree on a number of things. I call myself a libertarian since I combine the social liberal that you mention above with fiscal... conservatism, I guess? I liked reading what you wrote on teh subject. I also like that with the comments so far posted it has stayed a respectful dialog.
ReplyDeleteI have just written an article about framing the debate for abortion (http://libertysrest.blogspot.com), which I think a lot of people don't necessarily do properly, and was directed here in some of my searches about what other people think.
Like Iconoclast said though, while the law is the way it is, no matter what you think, trying to minimize them is a good goal.
No one mentions that all persons have legal and moral rights of bodily autonomy. I don't think abortion is morally wrong, but even if I did, I would not agree that anyone else or the state should have the right to take control of another person's body. That is what the anti-choice people want. That says that a fetus has rights above the pregnant woman.
ReplyDeleteRaphe, your analogy of a pregnant woman to a bed-ridden IV dependent is missing a critical factor. It would only be equivalent if the IV was in fact hooked up to the woman, and for 9 months she could not leave or un-hook. Even if she changed her mind. Even if it started to make her sick, or ruin her opportunity to help others that are important to her - now or in the future. Even if it ruined her or her family's financial future. Even if it was killing her? No reasonable person would require that a continuous blood transfusion for 9 months should be a requirement.