Abortion
Okay, I claim to be an opinionated kind of guy, that's the whole point of IMHO, ennit? But I realized a couple of weeks ago that I have been ignoring perhaps the most opinionated issue in the U.S. today: the abortion debate. I figure it's about time to jump feet-first into the cesspool. Warning: Nothing I say here is new. There's been so much said about this that I'm sure it has all been said before.
To start off with, two obvious statements need to be made, to try and ground this in reality. One, in a perfect world there would be no abortions, because there would be no reason for anyone to have abortions. No one would get raped, no one would be poor, all pregnancies would be expected, and every mother-to-be would want their child. Two, this ain't no perfect world.
What does that mean? It means that the issue is not whether abortions are in and of themselves immoral. That's a non-issue. They are immoral in and of themselves. But considering moral issues in isolation is like trying to drive the Autobahn with your eyes closed. Also, this is more than just a moral issue in the U.S. It is also a political issue. Do we want anti-abortion laws in this country?
So let's try to look at abortions with a little context. There are four main reason for abortion that come to my mind:
- The health of the mother is endangered
- The embryo is the result of rape
- The birth would ruin the mother and consequently the child
- Convenience
If the health of the mother is endangered, you are force to choose the lesser of two evils: kill the mother or kill the child. Who are we to make such a choice? Nobody, that's who. Each life is ultimately as precious as the next, although I think it is perhaps more correct to say that each life is ultimately as meaningless as the next. It is not our position to choose between such lives. Even if you don't believe in God, only they can make that choice. But a choice must be made, for no choice is a choice in and of itself. Given that dilema, the only person who can make that necessary choice is the mother whose life is at risk.
Next up is pregnancies resulting from rape. This is a very murky issue, and I'm not sure I understand all of the issues and consequences involved. And while I tend to write this section like I know everything, I'm going to throw up my hands on this one. I just don't know. I mean, something feels obviously wrong about forcing a woman to bring to term the product of a rape, but it's neither a rock solid faith, nor something I can elucidate in any rational way. It's just a visceral, empathic response.
The last two are really two ends of a spectrum that are rarely, if ever, reached. On the one hand you have the woman to whom motherhood is the destruction of their life. It is too much of a burden for them to bear and even maintain the basic subsistence necessary to live. In this context, abortion is obviously right. If the mother cannot live, she cannot support the child, and the child will die also. So instead of saving one life, preventing an abortion will ultimately lose two.
On the other end you have a woman who can easily take care of the child. They have the money, the time, and any other means necessary to raise a child. They just don't want to. Maybe they think they'll be fat an ugly while pregnant. Perhaps they would rather go skiing than take care of a baby. The exact reason is not relevant, just that it boils down to convenience. In this context abortion is obviously wrong. Convenience is never a suitable reason for ending a life.
However, these two contexts are at the extreme. In real cases there is always a mixture of the two. The mothers life will be damaged to some extent, and there is some convenience involved. The question becomes where along the spectrum you draw the line as to what is moral and what is not.
Since we are talking about context, and specifically a political/legal context, let's examine the consequences of possible conclusions. Frex, say we just outlaw abortions except for endangered mothers and rape (just a hypothetical to isolate the burden/convenience spectrum). History has shown that women will still get abortions. But if those abortions are illegal, they will certainly not be equal. The poor, who tend to be on the burden side of the spectrum, will get coat-hanger abortions. Some will die, and some will never have children again. The rich, who tend to be on the convenience side of the spectrum, will go to other countries or expensive black market hospitals. Relatively little disruption will occur in their life. Such a law would disproportionately punish those who are making the more moral decision. I believe that in itself is immoral, so I would be against such a law.
The obvious alternative is to make a law that specifies a point along the spectrum as the divider between the moral and the immoral. So who are we trusting to specify that point, to draw that line in the sand? If the country worked the way it should, we would be trusting the judges. However, the trend in the United States legislature is to take the judgment out of the hands of the judges, and specify it in law. Do you trust the U.S. Congress to make moral decisions? The impeachment debate has brought me to the conclusion that there are maybe a handful of Congressmen who are capable of making a moral decision without considering their next election and the party line.
I would rather trust the mothers themselves. People, by and large, outside the Beltway, are moral. Those near the convenience end of the spectrum will make the wrong decision. But they are on the edge of the bell curve, and the mass in the middle and on the other side will tend to make the right choice. If this fills you with righteous indignation that you did not get to make the choice, remember three things:
- God gave everyone freedom of choice.
- God did it for a reason.
- It is not your place to judge.
In closing, I am not saying that we should not strive for perfection just because neither we nor the world is perfect. We should work toward a time when abortions are immoral, in isolation and in context. But killing doctors and bombing clinics is not going to get us there, and are themselves immoral and counter-productive acts. To a lesser extent so are the more legal aggressive tactics taken by many against abortions. Abortions are the symptom, not the disease. If you want to stop them, work to change the conditions of the world that put women in a position to make that choice in the first place.
Last Modified 6/7/99
Created 2/22/99