Early on November 8th, 2000, I quickly checked the news in my college dorm before heading to an early morning institute class. I had gone to sleep thinking that George W. Bush had defeated Al Gore in the election, but learned that no clear winner could be established in Florida, thus leaving the presidential race still undecided. I had supported Al Gore during this election (although I was about 3 weeks shy of 18 on election day and unable to vote), primarily for a combination of his plans for education, the environment, and the economy.
As my institute class finished, I was anxious to leave so I could catch up on the details of the election. My teacher asked me why I was in such a rush. I told him I was “eager to find out if there was a chance that Al Gore might become our next president.” As I said these words, I saw a look of horror and disbelief cross his face. “How could you support a man who says it is okay to kill a baby?” he asked incredulously.
The topic of abortion is one of the most divisive in politics, and we are all aware that religion plays a huge role how people judge this issue. My institute teacher provided a perfect example of one who saw this issue in black-and-white terms. Either you are pro-life or you want to kill babies.
Another example: In this election, my wife has decided to support Barack Obama. Discovering this, an extended relative of hers began to write her probing e-mails asking her the same types of questions. “Barack Obama is ‘pro-abortion,’ how can you support him as president?” Despite her efforts to explain her views, both that she sees abortion as a much more complex issue than just a two-sided viewpoint, as well as the fact that she is supporting for him many issues outside of abortion, she has thus far been unable to reach common ground.
My wife and I share similar viewpoints on abortion. Like many politicians, Republican and Democrat (incidentally including Al Gore and Barack Obama), we don’t like abortions, and think there should be fewer of them. However, to us abortion is the negative side effect of a larger problem – unwanted pregnancies. Problems aren’t solved by treating the symptoms, and this is a deeply-rooted social situation that can’t be solved by a mere law or court decision. It requires a holistic effort, one that most ideological viewpoints would agree on in principle if they would stop arguing about the situation and work together to make a change.
In a recent article in the Ensign (monthly journal released by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints), Apostle Russell M. Nelson touched on this same topic to express the Mormon view on abortion from a religious perspective. He expressed plainly how Church policy is opposed to abortion, and how it is not in harmony with our religious doctrine. However, he did note that there are rare cases when an abortion may be an appropriate decision (including rape, incest, significant threat to the life of the mother, or when it has been determined by a doctor that the baby would not survive childbirth). He also spoke of the importance of alternatives, especially adoption.
Abortion is certainly part of an important social issue. However, I feel many approach this issue in the wrong way, or even worse, use it as a political tool with ulterior motives. No matter what our views on abortion may be, I think most people can see that simply expressing our opinion on the issue or scrutinizing others' viewpoints on the issue accomplishes very little. Let’s all try and find ways that we can solve the greater social needs collectively, rather than squabbling over the right way to apply a band-aid.
DISCLAIMER:
Saturday, October 18, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
18 comments:
Oooh. Am I first? Oh, boy.
I recently had a discussion with Brother Jack Rose, who many people who read this forum know. He has written a pair of books that are excellent, "The Cedar Post", and "Tears of Joy".
He said something along the lines of, "If you ask the question correctly, then the answer is never in doubt."
He used abortion as an example. I've paraphrased our discussion here a bit, because I recently reiterated the same discussion to my kids, and I needed a "cleaner" example than what he provided. This is what I shared with my kids.
Suppose you're sitting in the living room, and someone wanders in the front door. This person is obviously confused, is not communicating clearly, cannot follow instructions, etc. I asked my children, "What should we do?" They said, "We should call the authorities and have them take care of this person."
I asked them, "Would the whole situation be an inconvenience?"
They thought about it, said, "Yes."
I asked, "So, is it ok to kill that person because they caused us an inconvenience?"
They looked shocked. "No!"
Ahh.
I then asked, "Ok, suppose the same situation happened, but the person came in and threatened us. Would it then be ok to defend ourselves, even if it meant that the intruder had to die?"
They thought about it again, and said, "Yeah."
I said, "What if that person didn't know what they were doing, but was still a threat? They were sick, or mentally ill, or whatever, there was no malice - but they were still threatening us?"
They said, "Yeah, it would be a tragedy, but we should still defend ourselves."
...
Jack used a similar approach when he talked with me - our focus of the time was on "rights" - who has the "right" in this case? Which is the greater right?
The "inconvenience" of pregnancy - the baby has the greater right.
If the baby threatens the mother - the mother has the right to defend herself. (Note I didn't say HOW the baby threatened the mother. A product of rape is potentially an emotional threat.)
I thought this was an interesting way of removing all the emotionally charged rhetoric from the situation, and looking at it from an objective point of view.
I wonder Nils, was that from a brother Heywood's mouth. He would say something like that. This is an interesting topic though. I agree that this is more than a black and white topic. I agree with your feelings Nils. I can't really contribute more because you said it so well.
I'll admit that 'baby-killing' is what first drew me away from the democratic party, and by default, into the republican camp.
I've since come to terms (read: "grown up") and I now understand that not every democrat undervalues human fetus life, and not every republican is opposed to universal health care.
I strongly oppose abortion, but this doesn't preclude me from voting for a democrat.
Looks like this topic got people started right away!
Bmillios- Thanks for your observations and the "parable" you shared.
I think you bring up a great point that the term "abortion" loosely used doesn't always talk about the same thing. Abortion as a medical procedure could mean many different things. There is a difference if it is done as a form of "birth control" rather than for some other reason.
To bring up some more food for thought on this subject, I remember reading statistics from a study which looked at the abortion laws in different countries of the world. The lowest abortion rates came from countries which have the most liberal abortion laws (most notably the Netherlands and Belgium), while the highest rates of abortion actually happened in countries where abortions are completely illegal (countries in South America). The countries where abortions were legal also had strong programs for alternatives (good state adoption programs, sex education, etc.) while the countries where abortion was illegal had no real alternatives. I don't like abortions, but certainly black-market abortions are far worse...
Tyson -
Won't say who it was here, but maybe I'll tell you privately later. Whenever the election seasons roll around there seems to be a segment of Mormons who become Republicans first and Mormons second. As a person who has never been registered with any political party but am a member of the religion, this is still a strange concept for me.
Thaddeus-
I'm sure as you've looked more at these social issues and the views that candidates have on them, you've realized, as many do, that 90% from either party hold the same basic views. Do McCain and Obama have different views on abortions? Not really. Yet, how many people see Republicans and being the "Pro-Life" party, and Democrats as being the "Pro-Choice" party. The fact of the matter is, these labels mean next to nothing in terms of lawmaking, practice, or reality.
In a religious context, Mormons, myself included, are generally opposed to abortions and would like to see numbers of abortions get as close to zero as possible. But a politician isn't going to change abortion. The mentality of the people must change, and it is most important that personal responsibility is instilled into peoples' consciousness from the bottom up.
Nils,
Great to see some controversial topics being discussed. I agree some people are more black and white than the issue really calls for. If anyone of those 'pro-life' people had a wife sister or daughter who had gotten pregnant and were somehow in the situation that the woman was in danger of death, they might consider abortion as might we all.
However, the issue is really how loose, or how stringent will we make these laws. Will my 16 year old daughter be allowed to sneak off and abort her unfortunate accident without parental permission? Are there any restrictions on a pro-choice stance?
I can't agree that the Netherlands and Belgium having low abortion rates because they have the least restrictive laws can apply to the U.S. For one, we have a much larger population with a much greater mix of cultures, we're much more prudish, and governmentally we have lower expectations of responsibility than do those other places. I think abortion laws could be relaxed there because the people living there were acting responsibly already. I take the view that (Western) Europe is more responsible not only in matters of sex, education, health care, but also in matters of eating, energy consumption, and international politics.
When I think of abortion, I think of butch dykes howling about their right to their own bodies, and extremist Christian groups screaming about dead, blood covered foetuses. Neither are desirable. As with many issues the answer lies somewhere in the middle, and frankly, I'll reiterate what I said on a previous post, that the government cannot legislate morality, it rests entirely on parents (or parent-figures) to model and teach it. For some, where the law is not in effect, no right and wrong exists, and this is why it's a political issue. Those who cling to what is traditionally right and wrong are in opposition to those who have redefined right and wrong as they would have it.
On the other hand, if my candidate were pro-life, but had practically zero ability to legislate, zero executive experience, zero international abilities, was shown to consort closely with racists, slum lords, persons of shady financial practices, who has not even partnered to bring about projects which demonstrate any benefit to his constituents or the American people, who can point to very few and minor laws which he is either associated or loosely associated, who got a state seat uncontested, who got a Senate seat uncontested, who's best attribute is mugging for the camera and schmoozing, who's skills lie primarily in going along with whomever has decided to make him their boy, who's wife reminds me of James Brown, I would switch to the other candidate.
It's a good thing that I don't have any kind of power, political or omnipotent or otherwise, because I think a lot of what I would do would be to punish/restrict/legislate what I regard as stupid or immature behavior. Those who choose to throw out regard for responsibility and end up pregnant would fall well into my sights. But like I said, it's a good thing I don't have that power, or else things like Red Sox fans and humidity and Kansas would disappear. Ah, arbitrary disdain.
So for the folks whose vision won't pick up Technicolor: my black-and-white view is pretty much in line with Russell M. Nelson- no abortion should be allowed, except in cases of "rape, incest, significant threat to the life of the mother, or when it has been determined by a doctor that the baby would not survive childbirth", in which cases other alternatives should be explored and given equal consideration, and be done with a lot of thought and proper medical advice.
The problem is that we've come a long way since "Steamboat Willie"- not only is the world in color, we also see it now in rich digital CGI clarity. So the issue becomes not so simple anymore.
For me, the core principal is the same- if you screw up and make a bad decision, you have no right to punish an unborn child for your lack of foresight/caution/restraint. Why should the child be denied life simply because you weren't mature enough to handle yourself better?
I do agree that this is a hard issue to correctly legislate, if it should even be legislated. I personally have no problem with laws outlawing abortion- but where it gets sticky is in the aforementioned situations.
"Okay, Steve, but that's easy! Simply make it a law to have professional medical approval before abortions, in those cases, can be legally done. Even take it a step further and say they can only be done in hospitals, and remove abortion clinics from the future."
Okay, two catches here- first, all you need is a pro-choice/abortion doctor with his own agenda to approve any and all abortion cases that come his way to make that little rule moot. Try and bring in people to call his authority into question, and you run the risk of casting into confusion the trust in judgment that is a part of a doctor's profession. Doubt that, and anything goes. That's a troublesome thought.
The second point would be that such laws would possibly cause an increase in "black market abortions," girls going to proverbial dark alleys and having quack doctors with unsterilized equipment perform something akin to butchery. Again, an undesirable happenstance.
That being said, and here I focus more on the second consequence of laws against abortion, my firm belief is that just because something doesn't work in practice doesn't necessarily mean you discard or abandon it. Case in point- prohibition. It was a miserable failure. Crime went up, alcohol didn't go away, and Al Capone was the man of the hour (bet he wished he'd paid his taxes, though).
Prohibition was a catastrophe and almost completely ineffective. That said, I believe I would have voted against repealing it, and supported its continued enforcement. If we abandon something just because it doesn't work, we'd soon find ourselves in a sad state.
A colleague countered this argument of mine with the notion that there's a difference between standing on principle and just being stubborn. That may be true, but in this case, for me at least, this is one principle worth being stubborn over.
I agree with Nils that you don't treat a disease just by treating the symptoms. However, you don't ignore the symptoms just to treat the disease. Not looking at the overall and underlying cause gets you into trouble, but not acting until the core problem is gone can get you into trouble too.
Okay, I'm done for now, but only for now :)
I have a lot of thoughts about this issue, especially now that I am pregnant with my first child. My beliefs are on par with what Elder Nelson wrote. This is in line with a talk that Elder Oakes gave at BYU about choice and accountability.
I do agree that abortion is not necessarily a black and white issue. One of my biggest problems is with Roe v. Wade, which is some of the worst case law ever written. The Supreme Court justice who wrote the opinion was the intellectual lightweight on the Court and he probably didn't even deserve to be on the Supreme Court to begin with. I do not think it is appropriate for the courts to essentially make law from the bench. Legislatures are for making laws and during the 60's and 70's before Roe, many states were already in the process of liberalizing abortion laws to fall more in line with the changing will of the people. Because of Roe, the people are not allowed to do much in the way of making laws about abortion no matter how the people actually feel about it. If Roe is overturned, we will not go back to back alley abortions. State legislatures will do their jobs and pass laws that are consistent with the views of the people in that state. New York and California will likely have very liberal abortion laws, and other states like Georgia and Alabama will probably not outlaw abortion outright but will possibly limit things to just allowing first trimester abortions. By the way, the Netherlands and Belgium are anomalies when it comes to abortion law. Most European countries only allow first trimester abortions. Romania, for example, only allows abortions up to 14 weeks.
Excluding the extremists, I think a lot of common ground can be found. Many Americans, even many "pro-choice" Americans, agree that late-term or "partial birth" abortions are barbaric and should be outlawed.
Parental consent laws are another way to find common ground. I find it inappropriate that a 16-year old can get an abortion without parental consent but can't get an appendectomy without parental consent. An infected appendix that has ruptured and goes untreated can kill, pregnancy rarely kills these days. Should there be a way for a teenager to get an abortion without parental consent because one or more parents may be abusive? Yes. There are non-profit groups and lawyers will will present the case to a judge pro bono if the teen is in danger. Is it a perfect system? No. But we don't live in a perfect world either.
Over the past 20 years or so, the American people have become more pro-life. Few people want abortion on demand at any point during the pregnancy or to outlaw abortion completely. I may believe that abortion is wrong at any point in pregnancy, but living in a pluralistic society, I can live with first trimester abortions being legal.
I think improvements in medical science make the abortion on demand argument more difficult to make. Too many people have seen ultrasound pictures of 6 week old babies and can see how much the baby has developed. I vividly remember a photograph of a 21 week old fetus that was having surgery in the uterus to reduce complications from spina bifida reach out of the uterus to grasp the doctor's finger. You can see the photo at www.michaelclancy.com. I thought about this picture today as I was waiting for my ultrasound (I'm 22 weeks along). No one can look at this picture and say that this is a clump of cells. A 2 week old embryo has a beating heart. Babies can survive, with the proper medical care, outside the womb at 23 weeks (a normal pregnancy being about 40 weeks). I find that incredible.
Abortion is always a tragic choice, and I believe many women are not fully educated about the potential, long-term effects of abortion. Many women (certainly not all) suffer from depression because they regret having an abortion, as an example. Many "pro-choice" counselors do not always tell the whole story to vulnerable women. Many abortion clinics just do the abortions and send the women on their way as if it was no big deal. But for many women, it is a big deal and they need counseling and more than just an abortion. But nor do I think that women should be harassed outside an abortion clinic and told they are going to hell for killing their babies.
Truthfully, even a "wanted" or "planned" pregnancy is a huge inconvenience. It is no fun having your face in the toilet for 3 months, dealing with stretching abdominal muscles, gas, heartburn, constipation, bladder incontinence and an aching back and body. We won't even talk about labor and delivery. My pregnancy wasn't necessarily "planned". It's not like this baby is coming at the most convenient of times. Sometimes, I feel scared to death. My baby is alive and is already expressing his unique personality. All babies are a miracle.
If we, as a society, are going to make a mistake when it comes to abortion and when life begins before God, I would rather err on the side of life.
I have not posted on this topic because I've not been quite sure how to approach this group with my thoughts. However, one of my goals in life has been to let my voice be heard, even if I end up on the receiving end of rotten tomatoes. :)
I've watched the Roe vs Wade debates over the years, grown up in the Bible Belt, been a medical person working in Womens Health, and have had three wonderful children of my own. I consider myself very much "Pro Choice." That does NOT mean that I am "pro abortion," and I'm offended when people make that leap and label me as such.
I DO feel very strongly that the government has no right in making that decision for women.
My husband and I were discussing this last night. First of all, many who consider themselves staunchly Pro-Life, and want to take away the rights of a woman to procure an abortion, are often supporters of the death penalty. I don't get that. Truly, I can't wrap my brain around that. Some would argue that an unborn child is innocent, whereas someone on death row is not. Yet, the legal system is full of examples of innocent folks being sent to the death chamber.
We could go a step further, expanding the argument to wars and the killing of innocent men, women and children. Yet, some justify war as being sanctioned by their God. Is it really? Do we KNOW that for a fact?
While I didn't ALWAYS support the right of a 16 year old (or younger)to obtain an abortion without parental consent, I now feel differently. Having spent 30 years in the medical field, I appreciate now that for many 16-year-olds who find themselves in this situation, they cannot for the life of them bring this up to their parents without serious consequences. Just look at how the topic stirs up emotions both here, and in the media. While I'm sure that those on this forum are loving and supportive people, that is NOT always the case. And sadly, in some cases, the pregnancy is a result of incest (father, brother, etc). While I would like to think that my daughter could come to me if she found herself in this situation, I can promise you that that is not the situation that many young gals find themselves. It is not their reality.
And lastly, I cannot close this without saying that in my 30+ years of working in the medical field, I have not EVER come across an actual late term abortion. I'm not denying that they occur, it's just that if they do, they are quite rare. Associating it with Pro-Choice supporters is quite unfair.
Thanks for bringing up this topic, Nils.
I want to thank Janet for her candor- I realize she must feel outvoted here, and it takes real guts to stick your neck out like she does week after week, and I for one, although I often disagree with her to some degree, find myself learning from what she has to say, if nothing else rethinking what I believe- not that my beliefs change as a result, but it gets me thinking into the deeper "why"s of what I believe.
Her point about the connotation that the word "pro-choice" creates, especially among those opposed to abortion, is insightful. It's not fair in the slightest to assume that a pro-choice person is a pro-abortion person. I would venture to guess that many who say they are pro-choice aren't fans of abortion, but are more standing up for the right of a person to choose for themself. I think no one wants to have an abortion- it's not something to be rejoiced over or celebrated, because it represents a very difficult choice, and one that leaves a lifelong impression on those involved, most particularly the mother. I talked to several women in Russia who had abortions and they say to this day the situation still haunts them- here I say "haunt" not in the sense of regret, necessarily, though some did express that sentiment. I mean "haunt" in the sense of they still think about it often, after a number of years have passed. Okay, so "haunt" was a bad word to use. But I'm too lazy to change it. Sorry. Hopefully you get what I mean.
So I hope I never give the impression that by disagreeing with those who are pro-choice, I give the vibe that I think they are baby-haters- they aren't, and many, millions even, are parents themselves.
To me a crucial point is the discussion of choice and the disputed right/responsibility of government to regulate it. I think, of course, room needs to be given to the individual to exercise their power of choice without constant intervention by anyone or anything. I certainly don't want Uncle Sam telling me when I can or can't eat cereal, or what kind.
Choice is an interesting thing, though- people argue for pro-choice ideas, vehemently defending the right of the mother/girl/woman to choose. What needs to be considered, though, is that this particular choice of abortion doesn't involve one person. It involves at least two- the mother and child. "A woman's choice for her own body does not include the right to deprive her baby of life- and a lifetime of choices that her child would make." (Russell M. Nelson, Ensign, Oct. 2008, p. 35, emphasis added).
The choice I'm arguing about here is that of those who wantonly disregard the power of procreation for the sake of pleasure and gratification, and then seek to erase the consequences of that choice through a medical procedure. Those for whom teh pregnancy comes by rape or incest, or for whom the pregnancy threatens the life of the mother, should be able to consider all the options, even abortion, though it should be done with care, competent medical counsel, and prayer.
It's everyone else against whom my argument comes. People who have sex, aren't careful, aren't married, etc. Don't give me the "we tried to protect ourselves" routine, because I'm not in the market to buy. You have sex, you take the risks and consequences that come with it. You can't pick and choose those like a buffet. If you have sex, you could end up pregnant/getting a girl pregnant. When that happens, you're freedom to choose regarding the life/death of that child is gone (keep in mind I'm not talking about the aforementioned extenuating circumstances).
Russell Nelson gave a fitting analogy of an astronaut- at anytime during training or preparation, the astronaut can leave the program. But once the shuttle has taken off, "the astronaut is bound to the consequences of the previous choice to make the journey."
I wanted to go on about situations where the child is determined to have a birth defect of some kind, but I won't for now, since I've talked a lot already.
So what of the role of government, then? I believe the government has the responsibility to protect the lives of each of its citizens, and I argue that includes the ones that aren't born yet. No person has the right to take that of another, except perhaps indefense of self, family or country (and don't give me the "a woman should defend herself from an invading fetus" bit- that's an outdated load of horse dung). From what does a person have to defend his or herself when an infant is involved? Inconvenience? Money concerns? Sorry, sugar, shoulda done your research before you decided to get'er done.
No one has the right to take a baby's life, even that of their own (again remember I'm not talking about the extenuating situations mentioned above).
Now bring on the tomatoes!
::throws tomatoes at Steven::
I've ALWAYS wanted to do that.
Hee!
Seriously, I really appreciate Steven's points, and stand poised to receive his tomato tosses!
I would venture to say that most, if not all who post here, come from the belief that procreation is a gift from God. Most of you (and I'm not necessarily excluding myself) are basing your comments on religious beliefs, are you not?
If you were able to extract that element from your argument, does that change your point of view? It's pretty hard to extract that element, isn't it?
And, would I be a bad person if I believed that my own life could quite possibly be the byproduct of a strong biological urge to propagate the species?
::thinking through this myself::
AND, does that mean that IF I don't believe that there was divine intervention in the creation of humans (or other species that share our world), does that make me LESS able to mother my children, and help raise them to be good, honest citizens who contribute wonderful things to our planet?
OK, I've said enough. I stand ready to accept all tomatoes thrown my way, but would appreciate you giving me time to change quickly into some old clothes. :)
So you've always wanted to throw tomatoes in general, or you've always wanted to throw them at me? I'm confused.
One of my biggest challenges in talking about things like this is trying to extract my religious beliefs- they can often make poor sources for arguments, especially since a lot of people seem to discount your opinion somewhat when they learn it's based on religious belief. It's like, "Oh, you think that because you believe God said such..." While I don't know that it's fair to do that with people whose arguments are based solely or largely on religious beliefs, I do try to argue some points without religion- I guess it makes me feel smarter or more deep-minded...if that makes any sense.
Now to my response- I dare say most people who religiously believe that abortion is wrong and procreation is from God have a nearly impossible time removing their beliefs fromt the equation. Conversely, I wonder how many people who believe in "Darwinian" evolution are capable of putting God into the equation as much as they sometimes expect the religious to take God out. That's not a criticism, just an observation. TO Janet, then, have you tried putting God into the equation? Again, more of a curiosity than a challenge.
Per the second comment about ability- I would wager good money that there are a great number of evolutionists who are/would make better parents than I will be, so I don't know that where you believe procreation comes from has any bearing on it. For me, personally, it's hard to understand how humanity got to this point in civilization without some kind of higher help. My experience in journalism has taught me that far too many people are far too stupid to have made it this far on their own...:)
Just some thoughts late on a Saturday night.
::reaching surreptitiously for some over-ripened tomatoes...::
Hey, do you think I could be invited to the pcro blog? Mersi!
Steven, HECK NO I am not picking on you or wanting to throw tomatoes at you. I was just responding to your last sentence about bringing on the tomatoes. :) Really and truly, I was just readying myself because I seem to be the one whose thoughts are off kilter from the rest of the gang.
Quite frankly, if I had to do it all over again, I'd probably not have posted my last post. It's probably irrelevant to those here, but sometimes I just purge by writing things that come to mind as I read through responses.
One of the things that I cherish in my life is the ability for people to come together and dialogue about topics that are near and dear to their hearts. Maybe I should have been a social psychologist, because I love trying to understand why people think the way that they do. Nils used to sit on the end of my bed and we'd talk religion for hours, until I fell asleep. He'd also have long discussions in the evenings with his dad about religious and political topics. This is the same kid who asked me when he was three if Adam and Eve had a belly button. That's some deep thinking for a three-year-old!
So again, I did not mean to offend anyone, and I apologize if I did. I view blogging as a way to share beliefs with others, fine tune my own beliefs, and expand my knowledge base. I've been a blogger for years, and sometimes I'm offended by what others say. Sometimes I agree wholeheartedly, and sometimes a little light bulb comes on and I have an "Aha!" moment. I've learned so much from others.
Thanks to all of you for putting up with me.
Incidentally, Janet, one of the things I liked most about the four months I worked with Nils in Siberia were the long discussions of many different things that would occupy nearly all four hours of our morning preparation time, often spilling out onto our time on the streets of Novosibirsk. I gained a lot of insight and understanding during those conversations.
I've had several friends that have had abortions and Tara is right that there are many emotional and lasting scars as a result of such a choice. Whether they be of religious inclination or not. I've also had one friend who's had 2 abortions. She has been a practising member of the Salvation Army on and off over the years. She finally found a man has gotten married and they have been trying to get pregnant but so far have miscarried twice. One of her thoughts are is she being punished for her abortions in the past. She herself is a result of her mother getting pregnant when she was a teenager.
I believe in the instances that I am aware of personally, the choice of the possible mother-to-be took her own views of how it was not good timing or of age to support a child, or the right man, over the right of the baby to live, no matter the happentance of how the embryo came into existence.
To go ahead with a pregnancy and have your body change and experience all that comes with bearing a child, would be a truly humbling act, one that can't be hidden from oneself or family or society. I know of one friend that was sent away to have the child (all hush hush) and it was adopted, she is now married with 3 children of her own but I'm sure that child is still constantly in her mind as the days pass by.
A woman that makes a wrong decision to have sex as some may deem, to others it's "oh crap we forgot to use contraception" seems to have a lasting effect on their whole lives if a pregnancy results whether it is born or aborted or adopted. As for the man in the act he gets off scott free of any physical effects and possibly any emotional, depending on the type of person he is, and if he's been informed.
To make a hard and fast law on such things would have to have so many clauses. Only a week ago in Australia a case went to court about a child of 12 years old, who is pregnant and is slow of mind funcationing at the level of a 6 year old, it doesn't mention how she got pregnant but obviously something was a foul. The judges job was to decide if the baby can and should be aborted in the childs best interest. My main thought was how sick can some people be to have such a thing happen in the first place.
Personally I think society is loosing the ability to grasp right from wrong, regardless of religion or not.
Being pro-life does not mean I cannot tolerate a single abortion, it means I prefer the view that discourages abortion makes clearly defined exceptions when it is reasonable to do so.
Agreeing with capital punishment is totally different from agreeing to kill a foetus. No jury could be convinced that a baby in the womb has committed any crime, much less one that carries the death penalty.
If a 16 year old cannot go to her parents and explain that she is pregnant, I think this is a symptom of a larger family problem. Child services should have been engaged before the abortion clinic. Child services would then be providing the intervention that the parents should have done in the first place.
In Dirty Dancing, how many of us think it was a great idea for the pregnant girl to have a life-threatening abortion? But making it legal or illegal probably wouldn't change her decision since it was based on her perception of being able to pay for the abortion, and being able to keep her job.
I agree that completely outlawing the procedure is not the way to go, but the big debate here is really how to implement safeguards against misuse. It is not the same as an appendectomy, it has a much greater social and moral implication.
Hello Readers,
Sorry for the past week and the absence of a post. Due to a week-long conference last week, I have been catching up with a number of things. My new post will be up shortly.
Thank you all for your comments!
Nils
Post a Comment