Views on Abortion
I touched on this in my Political Views essay, but felt that it deserved its own entry. Those who have read my politics and euthanasia essays won't be surprised at some of the things here, but I've also tried to be as logical as possible, explaining various situations when abortions are either necessary or should strongly be considered.
It's important to note that I will not be approaching this from a scientific angle, but rather, based on my own opinions and logic. That said, abortion is one of those controversial topics which bare discussing. There are many reasons why women and/or couples choose to have an abortion. I must stress the fact that I don't ever consider abortion to be the first option, in the sense that women who don't wish to become pregnant should always use safe and reliable forms of contraception, such as latex or polyurethane condoms, iuds or hormonal options like the pill or the ring. Those who know, beyond a shaddow of a doubt, that they don't wish to have their own biological children should get sterilised, if the option is available to them, as it's an even surer way of avoiding a mistaken pregnancy. Even they should use condoms if they have multiple partners or if their partners do in order to avoid stds and stis. All of that said, even for couples which do use contraception, including those in which the woman has been sterilised, there is still the chance of pregnancy, however rare it may be. In fertile women, the condom could break, the iud, diaphragm, cap or shield could slip out or their homonal birth control may be affected by various herbs, alopathic medicines, cronic diarrhea, or due to their not taking the pill on time. There are those who might claim that this is divine intervention. I don't know the minds of The Gods so refuse to speak for Them, let alone for deities outside of my religion. If a couple chooses to believe this and is financially and emotionally ready for a child, that's great. But there are simply situations in which it is not realistically practical for a couple to allow a child into their lives. For example, they may already have other children, might need to care for a parent or relative or the couple could be very young and just starting out in their lives and careers, so wouldn't be financially or emotionally ready to make such a huge committment. It could also be that the couple wasn't steady, or was only friends with benefits, in which case they wouldn't necessarily be willing to settle down with each other, get married and have children. Why should anyone in any of these sinarios be forced to carry the burden of bringing up a child, particularly if they did take the necessary steps of avoiding pregnancy in the first place? Given these facts, some might urge Celibacy, even among those of a legally concenting age. But while a few may choose this route, it's certainly not the natural one for humans, so expecting everyone to follow it, or to only have sex for the purposes of procriation is rediculous!
But let's turn to much more serious sinarios. Suppose that a woman was raped. This is a horrifying experience, whether you're a vergin or the towns most permiscuous woman, and is never acceptible. This is not a case where she was being irresponsible, forgetful or even simply changed her mind. She was taken against her will and forced into sexual activity. Is it any better to tell her that she must now carry the result of that rape? What if she was a teen and/or her rapist was a relative or even her own father? If your answer has changed upon hearing that, I must ask why. Is one rape different from another? In all cases, the child will be a reminder of what happened. Again, there are those who are perfectly willing to have a child after a rape. But therein lies the key. They're willing and are not being forced into it.
Then, there are cases in which the life of the mother is at stake. For example, as I said earlier, there is a rare but still real possibility for a woman who has been sterilised, via tubal ligation or Essure, to become pregnant. In such cases, these are usually ectopic, meaning that the fetus stays in the fallopian tubes, which can be fatal for the mother. There are also women who have perfectly normal pregnancies but who may have diseases or other complications which could either kill or cause harm to them and/or their unborn children. Is it honestly right to force these women to carry the fetuses to term?
No parent/guardian in his/her right mind would ever say "I really hope my young teenager has sex soon". Unfortunately, many teens do, and of these, a large number don't use contraception. In some cases, it can be argued that it's because of a lack of knowledge. One would think, given the internet, that they would be able to find accurate information. But most teenagers aren't interested in researching, and even if they did, out of curiosity, look up information on sex, there's no garantee that they would receive it from a reputible source. Some simply ask their friends, who may be just as ignorant. So they may think, for example, that the withdrawal method is reliable, that, so long as the man doesn't have a full orgasm, the woman can't get pregnant or that novelty condoms, such as candy or lamb skin, are just as effective as latex or polyeurithane. This is why it's so important for parents to tell their children the truth and for them to receive safe sex education. Yet even when they know what to do and do it, as with anyone else, it could fail and the women could become pregnant. This is especially difficult on teenagers who haven't yet been graduated from high school, as they either have to give up their pursuit of knowledge, can't do so because they're below the legal age of quitting and/or have to find suitable means of receiving an education and insuring that their child is well cared for in their absence. This is a daunting enough task for those in college or grad school, let alone for those below that level! There are some schools which offer daycare, but this is not available everywhere. Furthermore, caring for a baby can impair the growth of such a young mind, since she (or it could be he, if the father took the child) now has to worry about feeding and changing the baby, keeping him/her well, making sure he/she naps etc. And of course, babies don't sleep according to a school schedule. So the parent/s could be up all night before the child finally falls asleep at 4 AM. In that case, they would get two or three hours of sleep before having to get up to start their day, leaving their minds foggy at best and totally unreceptive to knowledge at worst. Another problem young teens face is providing for the child. While someone who has at least been graduated from high school can find various entry level or other jobs, someone still in it or who quit can barely do anything today. And even when they can, the pay is hardly enough to get one person by, let alone a new-born baby and a partner. Finally, there is the simple fact that most teens simply aren't ready to take on such a huge responsibility as bringing up a child. One might argue that, since they had sex, they must now suffer the consequences. But I believe this is wrong. It's punishing them for a mistake that they shouldn't have made and/or didn't fully realise they were making. Shouldn't the very fact that the woman got pregnant be punishment and scarey enough? Why should she and her partner, who may not even be steady, have to then take the responsibility of caring for a child when they're both children themselves?
Some people talk about the right of the father when deciding on an abortion. While I can understand that some men might, indeed, want to be fathers, it's difficult to decide in their favour in many cases. This is because they're not the ones who have to endure nine months of pregnancy and then possibly many long hours of labour. If the fetus could be transferred to a man, I would say "go for it!" But this is simply not the case. That said, should a woman decide to make the sacrifice, and should the man really have the qualities and financial stability to be a good father, it could turn into something beautiful. But when men try to force the issue by claiming that they have a right to do so, it becomes a very serious problem. If one is that determined, and if the woman would be carrying said child against her will, then let him pay her monitarily for every hour of every day of her pregnancy. I have a feeling that most men would change their minds if that law was put in place.
There are those who honestly believe that all women use abortion as a form of birth control. While I won't deny that there are some who have one after another, seemingly without caring and never learning the lesson about contraception, this is an extremely small handful. That's like saying that every person who owns a kitchen knife will become a mass murderer. Most of us use knives to cut and/or spread our food, to open boxes etc. and would never dream of going into our kitchen drawer, taking out one and brutally killing someone. It's the same with abortions. Most women would rather avoid them, and even when they're very pro choice as I am and know that they don't want a child, most would never take the decision to abort lightly. If it's any consolation, I feel that those who really are that careless should be sterilised.
Finally, there are some who consider fetuses to be people. I personally don't consider a fetus to be a person. Unless it can survive in the sense of breathing and staying alive outside the mothers womb, it's still a fetus. So technically, I wasn't a whole person when born, as I was two months premature and only weighed 1 lb. 11 oz. That said, I am against so-called partial birth abortions, unless they're done to protect the life of the mother or there was a serious tragedy in the family (death of a partner, child or parent) which would make the mother so grief-stricken that she couldn't care for a new baby. Still, even in such cases, I would recommend adoption if at all possible, since the baby would be so close to being born. But in the early stages of a pregnancy, particularly at the stage where a test can first detect that a woman is pregnant, it doesn't even make sense to call that ball of cells with perhaps a handful of attributes a person. We don't call a newly cut tree a chair, an egg a chicken or a grape wine. So why should a ball of cells be called a person? It makes absolutely no sense to me. While we're at it, if a fetus is aborted, why is it wrong to use it to harvest stem cells. It isn't as if the woman chose to abort the fetus for that purpose. But, for whatever reason, it was aborted. So why can't its cells be used to help someone live, see, walk etc? Would that not mean that a part of it is still living, growing and helping another person?
Most of the time, I support a democratic form of government, specifically a republic. But there are times when I believe temporary military rule is necessary, and during such times, I believe that it's acceptible to remove certain rights, either until democracy is restored or until the country has calmed and the process of restoration has begun. Yet I'm extremely hesitant when it comes to reproductive rights. I can agree with banning hormonal contraception, as it can have truly undesirable side effects and can even be dangerous for some women. I can even tolerate, though again, I would never fully approve, abortions being limited only to those which are necessary to prevent the death of the mother or in which the mother was raped. After all, a good dictatorship is supposed to be temporary. But I would draw the line at banning nonhormonal contraception, such as condoms, diaphragms etc. and at not allowing a woman to go to another country to have an abortion performed. In a free society, however, I'm a lot stricter. Not only do I support government funding of organisations such as Planned Parenthood and age-appropriate sexual education classes (including teaching knowledge of stds, stis and protection), but I also think that those who harass women at abortion clynics should be arrested and fined on the first offence and imprisoned on the second. There are also times, regardless of the type of government, when I believe abortions should be encouraged and/or enforced. These include when the child will be born with such a debilitating disease that it would either cause him/her unreasonable amounts of pain without hope for a cure or proper management or would be so devistating to the brain that the child would never be able to understand basic concepts, and therefore, would never be able to care for him/herself. I also believe that certain types of individuals, such as the severely mentally retarded, those with disabilities which are sure to be passed onto their children, the criminally insane and those with a history of abuse and/or drug/alcohol use, with no desire to stop the above, should be sterilised. But neither this nor abortions should ever be done on the basis of age, sex/gender, race, religion, sexual orientation etc.
In short, there are many reasons for abortion. Some are medical, some are financial, some are related to maturity and others are simply a decision by those who know that, for whatever reason, they simply don't want a child. So long as the issue has been carefully considered, all are valid, which is why I am pro choice. As for me, I had a tubal ligation on 22 September, 2001, and hope never to have to deal with the issue.
It's important to note that I will not be approaching this from a scientific angle, but rather, based on my own opinions and logic. That said, abortion is one of those controversial topics which bare discussing. There are many reasons why women and/or couples choose to have an abortion. I must stress the fact that I don't ever consider abortion to be the first option, in the sense that women who don't wish to become pregnant should always use safe and reliable forms of contraception, such as latex or polyurethane condoms, iuds or hormonal options like the pill or the ring. Those who know, beyond a shaddow of a doubt, that they don't wish to have their own biological children should get sterilised, if the option is available to them, as it's an even surer way of avoiding a mistaken pregnancy. Even they should use condoms if they have multiple partners or if their partners do in order to avoid stds and stis. All of that said, even for couples which do use contraception, including those in which the woman has been sterilised, there is still the chance of pregnancy, however rare it may be. In fertile women, the condom could break, the iud, diaphragm, cap or shield could slip out or their homonal birth control may be affected by various herbs, alopathic medicines, cronic diarrhea, or due to their not taking the pill on time. There are those who might claim that this is divine intervention. I don't know the minds of The Gods so refuse to speak for Them, let alone for deities outside of my religion. If a couple chooses to believe this and is financially and emotionally ready for a child, that's great. But there are simply situations in which it is not realistically practical for a couple to allow a child into their lives. For example, they may already have other children, might need to care for a parent or relative or the couple could be very young and just starting out in their lives and careers, so wouldn't be financially or emotionally ready to make such a huge committment. It could also be that the couple wasn't steady, or was only friends with benefits, in which case they wouldn't necessarily be willing to settle down with each other, get married and have children. Why should anyone in any of these sinarios be forced to carry the burden of bringing up a child, particularly if they did take the necessary steps of avoiding pregnancy in the first place? Given these facts, some might urge Celibacy, even among those of a legally concenting age. But while a few may choose this route, it's certainly not the natural one for humans, so expecting everyone to follow it, or to only have sex for the purposes of procriation is rediculous!
But let's turn to much more serious sinarios. Suppose that a woman was raped. This is a horrifying experience, whether you're a vergin or the towns most permiscuous woman, and is never acceptible. This is not a case where she was being irresponsible, forgetful or even simply changed her mind. She was taken against her will and forced into sexual activity. Is it any better to tell her that she must now carry the result of that rape? What if she was a teen and/or her rapist was a relative or even her own father? If your answer has changed upon hearing that, I must ask why. Is one rape different from another? In all cases, the child will be a reminder of what happened. Again, there are those who are perfectly willing to have a child after a rape. But therein lies the key. They're willing and are not being forced into it.
Then, there are cases in which the life of the mother is at stake. For example, as I said earlier, there is a rare but still real possibility for a woman who has been sterilised, via tubal ligation or Essure, to become pregnant. In such cases, these are usually ectopic, meaning that the fetus stays in the fallopian tubes, which can be fatal for the mother. There are also women who have perfectly normal pregnancies but who may have diseases or other complications which could either kill or cause harm to them and/or their unborn children. Is it honestly right to force these women to carry the fetuses to term?
No parent/guardian in his/her right mind would ever say "I really hope my young teenager has sex soon". Unfortunately, many teens do, and of these, a large number don't use contraception. In some cases, it can be argued that it's because of a lack of knowledge. One would think, given the internet, that they would be able to find accurate information. But most teenagers aren't interested in researching, and even if they did, out of curiosity, look up information on sex, there's no garantee that they would receive it from a reputible source. Some simply ask their friends, who may be just as ignorant. So they may think, for example, that the withdrawal method is reliable, that, so long as the man doesn't have a full orgasm, the woman can't get pregnant or that novelty condoms, such as candy or lamb skin, are just as effective as latex or polyeurithane. This is why it's so important for parents to tell their children the truth and for them to receive safe sex education. Yet even when they know what to do and do it, as with anyone else, it could fail and the women could become pregnant. This is especially difficult on teenagers who haven't yet been graduated from high school, as they either have to give up their pursuit of knowledge, can't do so because they're below the legal age of quitting and/or have to find suitable means of receiving an education and insuring that their child is well cared for in their absence. This is a daunting enough task for those in college or grad school, let alone for those below that level! There are some schools which offer daycare, but this is not available everywhere. Furthermore, caring for a baby can impair the growth of such a young mind, since she (or it could be he, if the father took the child) now has to worry about feeding and changing the baby, keeping him/her well, making sure he/she naps etc. And of course, babies don't sleep according to a school schedule. So the parent/s could be up all night before the child finally falls asleep at 4 AM. In that case, they would get two or three hours of sleep before having to get up to start their day, leaving their minds foggy at best and totally unreceptive to knowledge at worst. Another problem young teens face is providing for the child. While someone who has at least been graduated from high school can find various entry level or other jobs, someone still in it or who quit can barely do anything today. And even when they can, the pay is hardly enough to get one person by, let alone a new-born baby and a partner. Finally, there is the simple fact that most teens simply aren't ready to take on such a huge responsibility as bringing up a child. One might argue that, since they had sex, they must now suffer the consequences. But I believe this is wrong. It's punishing them for a mistake that they shouldn't have made and/or didn't fully realise they were making. Shouldn't the very fact that the woman got pregnant be punishment and scarey enough? Why should she and her partner, who may not even be steady, have to then take the responsibility of caring for a child when they're both children themselves?
Some people talk about the right of the father when deciding on an abortion. While I can understand that some men might, indeed, want to be fathers, it's difficult to decide in their favour in many cases. This is because they're not the ones who have to endure nine months of pregnancy and then possibly many long hours of labour. If the fetus could be transferred to a man, I would say "go for it!" But this is simply not the case. That said, should a woman decide to make the sacrifice, and should the man really have the qualities and financial stability to be a good father, it could turn into something beautiful. But when men try to force the issue by claiming that they have a right to do so, it becomes a very serious problem. If one is that determined, and if the woman would be carrying said child against her will, then let him pay her monitarily for every hour of every day of her pregnancy. I have a feeling that most men would change their minds if that law was put in place.
There are those who honestly believe that all women use abortion as a form of birth control. While I won't deny that there are some who have one after another, seemingly without caring and never learning the lesson about contraception, this is an extremely small handful. That's like saying that every person who owns a kitchen knife will become a mass murderer. Most of us use knives to cut and/or spread our food, to open boxes etc. and would never dream of going into our kitchen drawer, taking out one and brutally killing someone. It's the same with abortions. Most women would rather avoid them, and even when they're very pro choice as I am and know that they don't want a child, most would never take the decision to abort lightly. If it's any consolation, I feel that those who really are that careless should be sterilised.
Finally, there are some who consider fetuses to be people. I personally don't consider a fetus to be a person. Unless it can survive in the sense of breathing and staying alive outside the mothers womb, it's still a fetus. So technically, I wasn't a whole person when born, as I was two months premature and only weighed 1 lb. 11 oz. That said, I am against so-called partial birth abortions, unless they're done to protect the life of the mother or there was a serious tragedy in the family (death of a partner, child or parent) which would make the mother so grief-stricken that she couldn't care for a new baby. Still, even in such cases, I would recommend adoption if at all possible, since the baby would be so close to being born. But in the early stages of a pregnancy, particularly at the stage where a test can first detect that a woman is pregnant, it doesn't even make sense to call that ball of cells with perhaps a handful of attributes a person. We don't call a newly cut tree a chair, an egg a chicken or a grape wine. So why should a ball of cells be called a person? It makes absolutely no sense to me. While we're at it, if a fetus is aborted, why is it wrong to use it to harvest stem cells. It isn't as if the woman chose to abort the fetus for that purpose. But, for whatever reason, it was aborted. So why can't its cells be used to help someone live, see, walk etc? Would that not mean that a part of it is still living, growing and helping another person?
Most of the time, I support a democratic form of government, specifically a republic. But there are times when I believe temporary military rule is necessary, and during such times, I believe that it's acceptible to remove certain rights, either until democracy is restored or until the country has calmed and the process of restoration has begun. Yet I'm extremely hesitant when it comes to reproductive rights. I can agree with banning hormonal contraception, as it can have truly undesirable side effects and can even be dangerous for some women. I can even tolerate, though again, I would never fully approve, abortions being limited only to those which are necessary to prevent the death of the mother or in which the mother was raped. After all, a good dictatorship is supposed to be temporary. But I would draw the line at banning nonhormonal contraception, such as condoms, diaphragms etc. and at not allowing a woman to go to another country to have an abortion performed. In a free society, however, I'm a lot stricter. Not only do I support government funding of organisations such as Planned Parenthood and age-appropriate sexual education classes (including teaching knowledge of stds, stis and protection), but I also think that those who harass women at abortion clynics should be arrested and fined on the first offence and imprisoned on the second. There are also times, regardless of the type of government, when I believe abortions should be encouraged and/or enforced. These include when the child will be born with such a debilitating disease that it would either cause him/her unreasonable amounts of pain without hope for a cure or proper management or would be so devistating to the brain that the child would never be able to understand basic concepts, and therefore, would never be able to care for him/herself. I also believe that certain types of individuals, such as the severely mentally retarded, those with disabilities which are sure to be passed onto their children, the criminally insane and those with a history of abuse and/or drug/alcohol use, with no desire to stop the above, should be sterilised. But neither this nor abortions should ever be done on the basis of age, sex/gender, race, religion, sexual orientation etc.
In short, there are many reasons for abortion. Some are medical, some are financial, some are related to maturity and others are simply a decision by those who know that, for whatever reason, they simply don't want a child. So long as the issue has been carefully considered, all are valid, which is why I am pro choice. As for me, I had a tubal ligation on 22 September, 2001, and hope never to have to deal with the issue.