Abortion is the talk of the whole country right now. I’m not going to add much to the conversation simply by sharing my views on the subject, so I’m going to try a slightly different approach; make both sides mad!
To set the stage, I am a male who grew up in a Christian household, regularly attending church, being saved and baptized, and being very anti-abortion. To be honest about it, I’m still anti-abortion in most cases. But, now, I’m also pro-choice. I feel like I legitimately see both sides of this argument, and a lot of the nuance is lost in the yelling and dehumanizing that goes on in the world of social media.
Notwithstanding political motivations of conservative party leaders, the disagreement amongst the masses on abortion has nothing to do with women’s rights. The outcomes certainly affect women’s rights, but that is not the fundamental source of the division. It really comes down to one thing, and one thing only; when does life begin?
The Pro-Life Perspective, simplified
Pro-life advocates typically believe that life begins at or before “conception”, which is a vague and often misunderstood term. Many people interpret conception to be the act of intercourse that results in a pregnancy. Others say that its moment the sperm fertilizes the egg, which is sometimes days after intercourse. Some view it as the moment the embryo implants into the wall of the uterus. Most make no distinctions.
For pro-choice advocates, I ask you to consider how you would feel if you also believed this. If a separate and distinct human life is created at this point, how can one be okay with sacrificing that life, for whatever reason? Pro-life advocates see no difference between an embryo and a fully-developed child. If this was your view, there could be no other logical continuance of that except to believe that abortion ends the life of a human and thus is always wrong.
The Pro-Choice Perspective, simplified
Pro-choice advocates typically believe that a new human life cannot be individualized until the point of viability; essentially when the fetus is mature enough to survive outside of the womb. Some take it to the greater extreme of the natural end of pregnancy.
For pro-life advocates, I ask you to consider how you would feel if you believed this. If you did not consider it to be a human life until the point of viability, what rationale would you have for denying someone the right to terminate the pregnancy?
We CAN all agree on one thing
In the media circus of the 21st century, outrage is all the rage. Civil discourse has gone the way of the dodo. Anyone not in our political tribe is evil and cannot be trusted. This is not healthy. People on both sides of this issue need to realize that the other side truly believes they are standing up for the oppressed. No one “wants to kill babies.” No one. No one on either side of this issue. We can all agree on that.
What Pro-lifers get wrong
Here’s what pro-lifers get wrong or forget about the abortion issue; embryos are actively rejected by the female body. As bad as it sounds, they are invaders or parasites in the body of the mother. Many fertilized eggs never make it through implantation because of this.
One cannot discount the risks of pregnancy to the human body. If one argues that life begins at the point of fertilization, then one must also realize that at that point, the embryo is completely self-sustaining and separate from the mother, requiring nothing from her. It is only later, as the embryo grows and moves out of the fallopian tubes and into the uterus, that the embryo attempts to steal nutrients from the mother.
Here is my point. No one can be compelled to give up their own life or body to preserve another. You cannot be forced to donate a kidney or liver or lung, even if it means someone else will die. One can make a moral argument as to whether you SHOULD make the donation if you can, but there is also a moral argument against being forced to make the donation.
The womb is no different. Even if you consider the view that life begins at fertilization, that new life shortly thereafter goes on to ask a sacrifice of the mother. She is being asked to share her blood and body with someone else. You can certainly make the moral argument that hosting that embryo is the right thing to do, but it is also morally wrong for the woman not to have the choice to share the body or not. Pregnancy is risky, especially in the United States, where we relatively high maternal mortality rates. Even if it wasn’t risky, in no other circumstance do we allow another person to dictate the usage of another’s body, even if that person will die as a result.
Medical abortions are not designed to kill the embryo. Instead, they simply cause it to vacate the uterus. If the embryo could then live on its own, it would be welcome to. But as we know, it can’t. Kind of a big hit for the argument that it’s a unique life at that point.
I knew you before I formed you in the womb
A popular counterargument is this: if left alone, the pregnancy would have resulted in a baby, even if it couldn’t make it on its own early on. First, that’s not necessarily true. Miscarriages are common. Second, that is an extremely dangerous slippery slope. Using this argument requires either a belief in predestination, and therefore no free will, or it is necessary to extend this to mean that every sperm and every egg is a living human being and should be regulated as such.
Or, maybe you can view this biblical statement as a reflection of God’s omniscience, and not a command that life begins before birth. If God is all knowing for all of the past, present, and future, this statement from Jeremiah is merely an observation instead of a rebuke against terminating a pregnancy. One also must recognize that in a country with freedom to practice any religion that religious arguments or doctrines should not be imposed as matters of law on other citizens.
To Conclude
My hope is that these ramblings have given you something to consider, regardless of which side of this issue you find yourself. For me, I have always found this to be one of the most difficult issues to discuss. But, at the end of the day, I cannot impose my morality on others. If I could, we would have vaccine mandates and smoking bans and prison sentences for not returning your shopping cart to the stall (that’s a joke)! This country is built on freedom. That’s the freedom to control your own body, and regardless of how I personally feel about abortion, it is ethically wrong for me to attempt to impose my own feeling on the issue on someone else. Abortion is healthcare, and extremely important healthcare in a country where maternal care and post-pregnancy mortality is so high.
Our inability to take care of the women in our country is the real moral failing. Abortion is chosen as a last resort, because women are constantly being asked to go back to the office for a follow up visit for birth control. They’re being denied IUDs or they can’t afford them. They have to have their partner’s permission before getting their tubes tied. Their insurance doesn’t cover these services, and on and on.
If we really cared about ending abortion, we would make sure there was an OB/GYN in every town in America, and that women could be seen at no cost. IUDs and tubal ligations would be free, hormonal contraceptives easier to get and prescribed by pharmacists. Etc, etc.
And then, when those things fail, we will still need abortion, because at the end of the day, it’s not my choice.
