Abortion

I think that where you stand on abortion has to do with whether you believe in absolutism or practicality. I'm not just a knee-jerk pro-choicer; I've thought a lot about it over the years and I can see the desire to take a moral stance and declare it murder, but the realist in me sees that the world is gray, not black and white. Nobody loves abortion; it would be better for everyone for it to never even need to happen, but in the real world, that's not a possibility. Abortion is just a necessity.

Abortion being illegal would not save more fetuses' lives; it would only kill more women. Abortion has always existed, and it always will, because there will always be unplanned pregnancies, and there will always be women willing to go to any length to end them. If you look at the actual numbers, abortion rates are not higher in countries where it's legal. But in countries where it's illegal, the rate of injury and death from illegal abortions is vastly higher. Abortion must be kept legal so that it is safe. Legal abortion saves women's lives.

Ultimately it's a choice between giving the fetus more rights and giving the woman more rights. It's dangerous to be pregnant and give birth; carrying a pregnancy to term is 13 times more dangerous than having an abortion. To give the fetus full human status would take away the woman's right to protect herself from that danger. And if the law must decide between the two, it's obvious that the woman should have more rights.

Most abortions take place in first few weeks of pregnancy, when the fetus is about the size of a grain of rice. The fetus is less developed at this stage than many animals, and it certainly can't feel any pain. And most abortions that take place after the first trimester are done for health reasons, out of necessity. Fetuses are not fully-formed humans; they are only potential humans. We can't insist that every potential human become an actual human; even a sperm or an egg is a potential human, if you give it the right conditions. Even a hair follicle might be, considering the possibilities of cloning technology.

It's obviously not about whether the fetus is alive. In the biological sense, it clearly is alive, but life in itself is not the issue, considering that we routinely kill living things in order to live. No, the question is if it is a human life, and if we must always protect human life regardless of the consequences. But there is no obvious line between non-human and human life. The only solution is to draw a line, and the only place that makes sense is at birth. Birth is when the fetus ceases to be dependent on the woman, when we can legitimately grant rights to the baby as a person because doing so would not diminish the woman's medical right to protect herself from the dangers of pregnancy and birth.

I don't think that an organism is somehow more worthy of life just because it happens to belong to Homo sapiens. There are many species of animal that are much more conscious and capable of pain than a fetus – if you advocate saving the fetus (and thus endangering a fully-formed human in the process), you should be trying to save those animals as well. But for the anti-choicers, it's not really about pain (considering the terrible suffering that factory-farmed animals go through so they can have a nice meal), and it's not really about life (considering that they kill plants and animals all the time in order to live), it's about their belief that a collection of cells that happens to have human DNA has some magical soul that makes it more worthy of life than anything else in the universe.

That's not a rational belief; it's a religious belief. And that's all well and good; people are allowed to believe whatever they want. But the religious beliefs of some shouldn't be the basis of public policy. Public policy must be decided based on what's in the best interest of the public, and prohibiting abortion certainly isn't in anyone's best interest.

The best way to reduce abortion is not to make it illegal, but to educate people — especially women — on family planning and contraception. And yet, it is usually anti-choicers who are the most resistant to contraceptives and effective sex education. A lot of pro-choicers say this is disingenuous, that this apparent hypocrisy shows that their true goal is just to control women's sex lives. That may be true, but I doubt they see themselves this way. It's probably just their belief in unwavering morality — they are opposed to premarital sex and they are opposed to abortion, so who cares if their strategy for one actually increases the other? They can't do anything to encourage or condone immoral behavior, even if it would reduce abortions.

So it is, ironically enough, the pro-choicers who have done the most to reduce the number of abortions, by advocating for reproductive freedom and educating people on safe sex. The best solution of all is to prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place. But we must always have access to safe and legal abortion, as a medical and human right, for our own safety and freedom.

related rant: Feminism

links:
National Abortion Federation
NARAL Pro-Choice America
Planned Parenthood
ACLU: Reproductive Rights
Pro-choice Public Education Project
SaveRoe.com
The Center for Reproductive Law and Policy
NOW and Abortion Rights/Reproductive Issues
Feminist Majority Foundation: Reproductive Rights
Why I Provide Abortions
Why Abortion is Moral
Abortion: Why the Religious Right Is Wrong
Feminist Internet Gateway: Abortion Rights
MIT Pro-Choice — Reasons
Sunshine for Women: Abortion with an Attitude

back to rants
back to expression
home