My view: Abortion

 I want this to be the first in a series of posts where I go into detail about my views. The purpose of doing this is to give exposition into my own musings on a given topic with the hope that both people who agree with me and those who do not will be able to better understand my position. 

The topic for this post will be abortion. I can very quickly summarize my view on abortion, and that is that I don't believe there is any reason or anything which gives me the right to dictate to any woman whether or not she should be able to get an abortion or whether she should or should not do regardless of legality. I have no children, I do not plan on having any children--even through adoption--and I am currently not sexually active with any women nor do I wish to be. There is nothing inherent about myself as a human or through my interaction with any of them which would cause me to feel any sense of entitlement to control which medical procedures she does or does not undergo. I may offer my advice, but only if it is sought. I equally see no reason which would grant me the privilege of offering unsolicited advice on the matter.

That being said, what follows now is merely what I believe to be logical exposition which supports my view that abortion should be legal as broadly as is reasonable (that is to say, I do not believe that third-trimester abortions should be wholly banned). 

I know there are many reasons people give for wanting to ban abortion--or at least restrict it. I will address only the argument among those which I find most compelling. Some of the arguments I have seen opposing abortion have been downright laughable or wholly despicable. But the one position I have respect for is those who claim that the embryo or fetus [in this post I will use the word "fetus" to mean either embryo or fetus, and only use "embryo" when I feel the distinction between the two is relevant to the discussion, but I do not wish to conflate the two with each other or either with a baby which has been born] is a human and deserves to have its rights protected. Since they are clearly incapable of defending themselves or their own rights, the government needs to step in and protect them. This is the only position I can see in the anti-abortion camp which I can conclude is borne from compassion or kindness. I do believe that the government should be in the business of protecting people who are incapable of, or have limited ability, to protect themselves. For example, I believe the government has the right to protect marginalized minorities against the discrimination they face on a regular basis.

Addressing this particular point--that the fetus should be considered a human and granted the protection of human rights, I have three main points I would like to make. The first is that I do not observe that the government treats fetuses as humans. When a baby is born, it is issued a certificate of birth. This is when the baby first becomes recognized as a legal entity by the government. If I wish to prove my citizenship status, my birth certificate (or a government-issued document such as a passport, for which a birth certificate is necessary) will be required to do so. The government does not issue conception certificates nor certificates at any point during the gestational period prior to being born. It issues birth certificates and all legal considerations are based on the time of the birth. If I wish to vote, I need to wait until eighteen years after I am born before I am eligible. If I wish to (legally) drink alcohol, I need to wait until 21 years after the day I was born. Age is based off time from birth, not time from conception. Indeed, if we did base age off time of conception it would be nearly impossible to know the exact age (to the day) of any individual with the technology we now routinely use. Also, many people who are considered to be the same age would become a few months different in age due to being born late or early. So my first point is that the government does not treat a fetus the same as humans which have been born. 

The next point I would like to make is that a fetus (and especially an embryo) does not behave the same way a human being does. Human beings exist independently. They may be dependent on the care of others, if they are invalid or if they are young infants. But that care can be provided by any individual. It does not require the constant nurturing that the umbilical cord and uterus provide to a gestating fetus. An embryo may split, turning one embryo into two. Humans do not do this. Even infants are not capable of turning into twins after they have been born. An infant is capable of living and growing without requiring nutrients to be infused from another human being. (Yes, I acknowledge that many women breastfeed and I'm certainly not opposed to those who do so, but it must be acknowledged that after the child has been born this is purely optional and any lactating woman--not just the mother herself--may provide the milk to feed the baby.) The fetus is physically attached to the body of the mother. It seems quite rational to me to conclude, then, that it is part of the mother's body and not yet a body of its own. To that point, I would concede were someone to argue that once the fetus was viable (to be born and survive), it would then qualify as a human being. Still, for other reasons, I do not believe it is my place to deny women the right to abort after the fetus has been deemed to be viable by a medical expert. 

The third point I would like to make to address the argument that a fetus should be afforded the rights of a human is simply that no human has the right to coerce another human, against their will, to provide for them life-saving procedures. For example, if I have a relative who needs a bone marrow transplant for cancer treatment--to save their life--I cannot be forced against my will to provide my bone marrow to them. I have the right to refuse to undergo the procedure, refuse to donate my bone marrow, and if no other matching donor can be found, the result may be the relative's death. The law that we have allows that. If I do not wish to participate, I cannot be compelled to do so. Therefore, asserting that banning abortion is the equivalent of granting to fetuses the same rights which (postnatal) humans have is false since no (postnatal) human has the right to force someone against their will to provide life-giving care. A pregnant woman clearly is providing life-giving care to a gestating fetus, and up until the point when the fetus becomes viable it is necessary care without which the fetus would die. If she is willing to provide that care, she is free to do so. I do not believe that she should be compelled against her will to do so, just as I am not compelled against my will to donate bone marrow. To ban abortion on the grounds that the fetus deserves the right to life against the mother's will is to declare that the fetus deserves a right to which no (postnatal) human is entitled.

I know that there are many reasons women seek abortions. I know that some women simply do not wish to carry the fetus to term, and have no other reason for seeking an abortion. I believe even these women should be allowed to abort their fetus. And the reason I believe that is that it simply is none of my business what her reason is for seeking an abortion. No woman owes me or any other person an explanation for her abortion. She should not need to prove that she's doing it for a reason that I believe to be ethical or admirable or justified. My opinion on whether she should get an abortion or not is irrelevant because it is not my body which is providing nutrients to the fetus gestating within. This is the way with many things in life. 

I believe that many organized religions are unethical. They prey on vulnerable individuals, they use manipulative tactics, they instill fear in their members. I do not believe religion should be illegal. I do not believe that an individual who wishes to participate in one of these religions owes me or anyone else an explanation in order to do so. They should be free to engage in any religion of their choice. They should be allowed to worship however they wish, and donate their time and material goods to the religion if they wish to do so. I give this example merely to illustrate that there are things I believe people should be free to do (or not) as they desire regardless of whether other people believe it to be moral or immoral. Some people wish to seek a path which they feel helps them experience their own spirituality, and they should be allowed to do so regardless of approval from the government or their other acquaintances, friends, or family. Just so with abortion. I don't need to approve of every woman's reason for seeking an abortion. It is hers and hers alone. If her reason is sufficient for her, that is all that matters. 

That being said, of course I believe we should not allow women to be forced into getting an abortion. It is wrong to pressure or coerce a woman into getting an abortion which she does not want. She may be forced to do so in order to save her own life in some cases, and that may be a very difficult decision for many women to make. But she should not be coerced by the father of the fetus or by any other individual to abort when she does not wish to do so. To me, that is just as abhorrent as denying her the right to choose to abort if she does wish to do so. 

I have seen many people arguing against third-trimester abortions. When I see that, I really have to stop and wonder to myself what is going through the mind of someone who believes that early abortions should be allowed but not late ones. I've known many pregnant women in my life. Not a single one of them enjoyed being pregnant. (I have been told that some women do enjoy it, and without having seen data on it, I'm afraid this leg of my argument is based purely on anecdotal data and what I believe to be the norm.) Most women have no reason to carry a fetus for eight months simply to abort it at the end of eight months. What I mean to say is, I am very skeptical that there are any women out there who think "You know, I really just want to get pregnant and experience the bloating, cramping, back pain, morning sickness, and all the unpleasantness that comes with pregnancy but I don't actually want a child so I'll abort just before it's born." Therefore, I must conclude that if a woman seeks an abortion during her third trimester there is a reason for it and more likely than not, she did not intentionally postpone the abortion during her first and second trimesters with the pre-conceived desire to abort during the third. Again, the reason itself doesn't matter. I simply am asking the question, what is going through the mind of someone who supports abortion during the first trimester but argues women should not be allowed to abort after a given fixed point during the gestational period. 

I am also aware that many places which do allow abortions require a woman to first receive "counseling" of some sort and typically this "counseling" consists of being exposed to anti-abortion propaganda with the intent to scare her out of her decision. To me this is clearly unethical and is a practice which should not be engaged in in any professional medical setting. Medical professionals should be available to provide the medical care needed. The advice they give should be restricted to what they believe is in the best medical interest of the woman herself. In other words, I do think a doctor would be within their rights to indicate to a patient that in their professional opinion an abortion is not necessary in order to preserve the mother's health, but their advice should go no further than that and should stop short of discouraging the woman from proceeding. People seek medical procedures regularly which are not necessary. They may do it for vanity or from a place of paranoia or any number of other reasons. A woman may regret getting an abortion. I still think she should be allowed to do it. We all have done things in the past that we regret. We must learn to live with our past decisions--but it should be her decision to make and that regret can live with her because it was a decision she made not because she was forced one way or the other into the decision. 

So I suppose in summary, I would say that the people who assert abortion should be banned on the basis that fetuses are humans and deserve the rights of one, our differing opinions are the same on the fact that we both want to promote freedom. We simply differ on where that freedom applies. I believe it is clear that adult women deserve freedom--they deserve human rights. Opponents of abortion would assert that the woman does not deserve the right to abortion because it conflicts with the fetus' right to life. But at the end of the day, we both want to maximize freedom. I think it's good to find common ground with people whose opinions differ because it is only from common ground that any mutual understanding or dialogue is possible.

The last thing I will say on the matter has little to do with abortion itself and more to do with the types of people I often see arguing vehemently against abortion, and that is the fact that the anti-abortion movement calls itself pro-life. For those who in other matters are truly pro-life, I have no issue with the appellation. However, it has been my experience that many of the individuals who oppose abortion also oppose programs like free lunch for school children, WIC, food stamps, and gun control laws. If you want to claim to be pro-life, go all-in on it. Support programs and laws which will promote life and discourage the unnecessary end to it. Feed hungry children. Protect children from would-be mass murderers. Pass meaningful gun reform in the effort to prevent disturbed individuals from obtaining firearms and using them to shoot up our schools. Allow mothers in poverty to get the formula and baby supplies that they need to care for their infants and children. Actually be pro-life.