This morning’s entry will be about a wonderful and non-controversial subject. ABORTION! Or, as some people prefer to it, “smasmortion,” or as my reactionary Philosophy professor would call it, “mass extermination.” Whatever you choose to call it, it is what I am going to be writing about. For the sake of expediency, I will just refer to it as abortion. I know this is a very touchy subject for many people and tends to make people feel very uncomfortable. Some would say that the uncomfortable feeling is good, since we are talking about such a horrible thing. Some people feel the current abortion culture as being no better than the Third Reich. Others feel that by sanitizing the descriptive words we use for it, such as “terminating the birth” or “reproductive health,” we allow a more civil discourse on the subject. My viewpoint is this, no matter how immoral the idea of abortion is to some, the underlying morality of the situation is, at best, a gray area. With that being said, I do not feel it is the government’s role, in a democracy, to regulate a gray area of morality at the expense of our civil liberties.
I know that seems like a bold statement. Abortion, a gray area? We are talking about murder right? Civil liberties? What about the child’s right to life? Isn’t an abortion an infringement on the rights of the unborn child? Isn’t the government’s role to protect its citizens? Well, I would like to answer all of these logical questions. I would also like to discuss the sanitation of the abortion language. I also want to touch on partial birth abortions as well as the likening of abortion to any sort of genocide or atrocity carried out by a government. My goal isn’t necessarily to get you to agree with me. I know some reading this will not agree with me, and that is fine. This is American after all. To be American is to be opinionated. My goal, I suppose, is to get you, the reader, to at least attempt to understand, not only my opinion on the subject, but that other people may have good reasons for having different opinions, and even if you do not agree, you can have respect for other viewpoints. I also want to point out that since series of books can be written about this topic, that anything I write here in a couple of pages will be an oversimplification of a very complex issue. If you feel the need to argue with me, which is fine, please do not use the lack of a thorough and complete argument as justification for dismissing my point of view. I am very welcome to disagreement, but I do not feel like digging through countless web pages to find arcane wording on a decision made by the Arkansas Supreme Court in 1923. Fair enough?
First, I want to discuss partial-birth abortions, just to get it out of the way. A partial-birth abortion is used for fetuses in the second trimester of pregnancy and beyond. Basically, the baby is delivered just as if it was being birthed, all except for the head. The head remains in the womb. The doctor takes a pair of scissors, cuts a hole into the skull and suctions out the brain. The baby is then considered dead, and then delivered the rest of the way. In this case, if the baby’s head is outside of the womb, legally, continuing the procedure would be nothing less than first degree murder. Most people think that they are illegal in the US. There is a loop-hole in the Roe v. Wade decision (and subsequent laws) that allows them only if there is a sound medical reason to do so, such as that the pregnancy is threatening the health (or life) of the mother. Since the wording is vague, some people have read into this that it can include the mental health of the mother. From what I have been told in class, (I am too lazy to do the research right now) about 4000 partial-birth abortions are preformed a year in the US.
Obviously, the thought of a child, who has started to develop organs and has started to resemble a baby pulls at our heartstrings. The idea that they have their brain sucked out while they squirm, just two inches from freedom sounds nothing less than murder. If not murder, perhaps something inherently immoral. I agree. To me, the further along the pregnancy, the less gray the morality of the abortion is. Even though the fetus may or not be viable at this point is a moot in my opinion. Personally, if the pregnancy has been carried to term this far, unless the mother’s life is seriously in danger, I feel that all efforts must be made to wait long enough for the fetus to be viable and then labor be induced. Whether or not the mother keeps the child is up to her. Obviously if continuing the pregnancy is life threatening, then the rights of the mother to proper medical care over-ride the limited rights of the fetus.
The main point of my argument happens to be that abortion, in the 1st trimester, is a gray area of morality. I understand the argument that pro-life people make that the embryo is a potential human life and that the potential human life also has rights. The reality of the situation is not whether or not YOU or I think it is a black and white issue. There is no pressure in our society to get abortions. If you, personally, do not want to get an abortion, don’t. I think the real issue of abortion goes beyond what any individual thinks of abortion, which is the point that many people cannot see past. The legality of abortion is a matter of government involvement in our lives, to what extent it can interfere, as well as the freedoms we have and how far they should be protected.
In a democracy, the government is of the people, and the laws should reflect the beliefs of the majority of the people. When we allow a minority of people to start writing the laws, and subsequently, defining morality for everyone, the government stops being a democracy and then becomes an oligarchy. We become no better than a dictatorship, because the will of the people is not expressed in the laws of the land. We cease to be free at that very moment. The fact of the matter is that a majority of the people in our country believe that abortion should be legal in some shape or form. I am willing to bet that most people would not even consider having an abortion, and may even consider it to be immoral, but they recognize the fact that it is not their place, or the government’s place, to tell someone else that it is immoral in their particular case. Abortion is a gray area, in that our society believes it is a grey area. Things like murder and rape are not gray areas; hence, they are illegal. The question everyone has to ask themselves is not whether or not they think abortion is immoral, but whether the government should be forced to impose the will of a minority on the majority. In my opinion, that is something that you really cannot ask in a democracy.
Now that we are talking about freedom and rights, let’s discuss the rights of the unborn child. It is a dicey proposition to start trying to determine when a blob of reproducing cells has reproduced enough cells that it could be considered a human being. I will not even attempt to do so. Just about any point that you legally determine is going to be somewhat arbitrary. I would guess that the determination should before the fetus has significantly developed organs, especially the brain and heart. But, of course, that is overly romantic of me. The point is that a blob of cells with the potential for human life is certainly different from a developed fetus. Again, removing these cells may be morally questionable to most of us, in our own life. I don’t think that anyone can argue that there are definitely times when abortion can be considered OK, such in the cases of rape and incest. Forcing a woman to carry and give birth to a child that is conceived in such circumstances would be morally reprehensible. But, in saying this, we recognize that the mother has more rights than that of her embryo. So, how far does the mother’s rights extend? Who can determine just when it is OK for her to exert her rights over those of her embryo? Ultimately, only one person; the mother. However, there is a point that the child has equal rights of the mother, and its rights should also be considered. And, again, that point is determined by a democratic process. When the rights of the child and the rights of the mother are seen to be the same is a matter of political debate, obviously, but we, as a society, do recognize that that time does not start at conception.
I am sad to say it, but freedom is not free, as many conservatives say. But, I do not mean it the same way they do. When they say it, they mean that we have to give up some of our freedoms in order to retain most of our freedoms. I do not agree with this sentiment, but that will be the source of another post, I am sure. When I say that freedom isn’t free is that there has to be casualties in our efforts to retain our freedom. In the case of abortion, the casualties are obvious. The child, certainly, but also the mother. I can not speak from experience, being that I am not a woman, nor have I ever had an abortion, but from the women that I know that have had them, they are profoundly affected by it. I am sure it is a rare woman that can look at abortion so callously as to not give it a second thought. The act of exerting her freedom comes at a terrible price. However, the fact remains that she made the decision and she must deal with the consequences. Ideally, a woman who considers abortion considers both the good and bad consequences and comes to a well thought out and logical decision that is right for her. This is important however. The mother freely chooses what to do. Sure, there may be pressure from the father or her family, and maybe even economical factors have a say in the decision, but ultimately it is the mother’s full decision. She certainly has the right to keep the child. As obvious as this seems, I mention it all for a reason. The reason is that many pro-life people, with their propaganda, tell people that abortion is a mass extermination of the same level of Nazi Germany, and perhaps worse.
Being Jewish, it is hard for me to accept the idea that abortion and the Holocaust are in some way connected. Let me delve into it anyway. Besides radical Muslims and wacko Catholics, people consider the Holocaust one of the worst things that happened in recent history. I do not think it was the sheer numbers, because many more people were killed in China and the Soviet Union under Stalin and everyone’s favorite dictator Mao Tse-tung. The Holocaust is not just about Jews though. What made it so horrible was the reason for all of the deaths. Willing and open enslavement and genocide of not just Jews, but any “inferior” race was the explicit aim of Hitler’s Final Solution. Though Stalin and Mao killed more people, their reasoning was rather pedestrian in comparison. Their goal was to solidify their power and influence. They killed people who they determined were political enemies. Which, of course, is horrible. I am not saying that it isn’t. But, their goal was not to wipe an entire race of people off of the planet. So, what made Hitler more insidious than the others was purely his ultimate goal. But, their objective was not so different. Stalin and Mao wanted a new type of man to be built in their countries, that of the ideal Communist. Though their views of the Communist man were quite different from Marx’s Communist was much different, but I digress. They wanted to rid their countries of the people who had different ideologies, hence the mass murders. Hitler wanted to rid his country (and the world) of people not only for their ideological differences, but also their racial differences. Stalin sought to get rid of the capitalists and Hitler wanted to get rid of the capitalists, the communists, the Jews, the Slavs, gypsies, the homosexuals, the mentally ill, the physically deformed, the blacks, and etc. That is what made Hitler more evil. That and Hitler didn’t have as large of a population to terrorize as did Stalin and Mao.
Well, with all of that being said, how does abortion even come close to the horrors of the Final Solution. Superficially, one can say that Hitler killed between fifteen and twenty-five million people, and is responsible for all of the deaths of World War II, over forty-two million. Abortion has “killed” between thirty-five million and forty-eight million in the US since 1973 (depending on whose stats you believe). I think that we can all admit that that is a staggering number of deaths. Inconceivable really. Even that many abortions seems rather ridiculous in my opinion, and I am pro-choice. But, the difference between Hitler and abortion is an important distinction to make. In Nazi Germany, the government decided who was fit to live, and who was not. They also decided who should have children and who should not. The issue was repression, government involvement at such an intimate level. Their goal was not preserving civil rights, but that of a twisted scientific experiment in genetics. One man decided the fate of million of people, and the fate of their children. The government made these decisions in the place of the individual, which is a major distinction. In the case of abortion, one person makes the decision for each “death,” which happens to be the person most affected by the decision. It is not a concern to anyone besides those affected by it that need to be involved by the decision making process. If you consider abortion murder, then the only comparison you could make to Nazi Germany is that of numbers of “dead.” Beyond that there is absolutely no comparison. None. In fact, I feel that by banning abortion, we become more of a Nazi state. When the government starts regulating such personal decisions in such a moral gray area, we become more of a fascist state, not less of one, as pro-life people would suggest.
The last point I wanted to make about abortion now was about the sanitation of the language used by pro-choice people, as well as the inflammatory language the pro-life people use revolving around abortion. I am even guilty of it. Referring to an embryo as a “blob of cells,” and etc. In a way, I think most people know that abortion may not be wrong, but it isn’t necessarily right either. Because of this, I think that it is easier for people to use words that hide the true meaning of what it is to have an abortion. This is common in any language that describes things that people have to do that is really unfortunate. Much like during wars, soldiers start using derogatory language to describe the people they are fighting. By dehumanizing their enemies, it allows them to believe that they are not killing real people. If you think of it in those terms, one can understand how things like “planned parenthood” and “termination of the pregnancy” are used commonly in the discourse on abortion. Pro-life people use harsh shocking words to solidify their viewpoint on an emotional level. Using words like “extermination” and “murder” are, obviously, over-the-top and really unnecessary. I do not think that using this sort of language really wins any sort of support by people on the fence on this issue. I think it is time that the debate of abortion rises above such a manipulation of language and the ensuing anger on both sides.
The reality is that abortion is not a great thing. Forty-eight million abortions is not something to be proud of. Pro-choice people do no good to their position by pretending that abortion is anything less than it really is. Pro-life people do not do any good to their position by coming off as religious zealots, causing emotional trauma to women in difficult situations as it is, in their protests outside of medical clinics and hospitals. What we should be proud of is the fact that we have the freedom to have abortions if we so choose, and the right to have our own children if we choose. The real question we should be asking is how do we put an end to unwanted pregnancies? What sort of social programs can we enact that would heighten the awareness of safe sex and birth control?
My source of contention with pro-life people is that they are naïve on two fronts. They talk about abstinence, and get angry when birth control and safe sex are taught in schools. They talk about banning abortions and get angry when people disagree with them. Here are some truths about our society. People have sex, even teenagers. Pre-marital sex. Sex for other reasons besides procreation. I know. As much as you may not like it, or think that that is immoral, that is what actually happens. Another thing, people have abortions, regardless of the legality of it. For centuries people have had illegal abortions, probably since the beginning of human history. Immoral or not, it happens. I do not understand how someone who lives in our society cannot see these things as facts. Now, if one understands these to be facts, regardless of how they feel about them, how can they go on to say that safe sex and birth control should not be taught to people? How can they say that abortions should be illegal, when they are against the very thing that would help prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place? I would understand the pro-life position if they said, “Well, we believe in mandatory sex-ed in schools. Everyone. At an early age. We believe that people should have free access to birth control and condoms. We believe that there should be no prescription necessary for the morning after pill. After all of that, is someone becomes pregnant, well they shouldn’t be able to have an abortion, because we gave them every opportunity to avoid it.” If they said that, I think that would be infinitely more logical and I would understand it more.
But, I digress. Oddly enough, I do not even think the debate of abortion is even about abortion. It is about freedom and control. It is about cultural definitions of morality at odds with religious definitions of morality. We are entering an age of unprecedented moral identity, one that no longer has an authority in the church, or even the government. With our freedoms and civil liberties, we are allowed to define our own morality in any way we see fit. No longer do people need to fear excommunication, or exile based on their beliefs. It is a great time to be a human being. The only valid definition of morality in a democracy is that of the majority of the people within the society, and right now, that means that we believe that abortion should be legal, and so it is, as it should be.
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}