On Choosing Life, Pt. IV

This is part four in a series on abortion.  You can read Part I here, Part II here, and Part III here.

Abortion is not merely about the procedure involved, of course.  There are many related issues, a few of which some friends of mine have reminded me of.

For example, one asked me why it had to be political at all.  That question only works when one looks at abortions as purely about personal choice.  When one side views abortion as murder, political involvement is inevitable because it becomes a legal issue.  If abortion is indeed the murder of unborn children, as opposed to a mere medical procedure, then it transcends the realm of private life into a procedure that should be illegal.  If abortion is not, the argument works.


This is also related to the people who oppose abortion personally, but harbor no desire to see it outlawed.  Many years ago, when I was going through puberty, I held a similar position.  The problem with this perspective is that it is, in essence, someone who starts thinking about the subject, stops midway through, but uses the partial thought as a position.

The problem is, why do people oppose abortion?  I have never heard a cogent argument against it that does not recognize the right of the baby to live.  Indeed, being pro-life means recognizing the baby has a legal right to live.  Therefore, it is contradictory to believe that abortion is wrong personally, but then be comfortable allowing others to abort.  If that is truly a person's position, what does that person stand for?  He or she holds two positions that conflict on every level.

There are, of course, those who defend abortion on the basis of the "burden to the state," particularly in the case of the impoverished and the young, the people who may not care for their children well or give them up for adoption.  I believe this argument to be unjustifiable.  To view an unborn child by whether or not it will cost the government or society anything is to place the government before the lives of its citizens.  To use this line of thinking is to suggest that because someone, anyone, has the potential to be a "burden" on government, their lives are worth nothing.  It suggests that these people, unborn or otherwise, do not have any value as human beings because the government/society "must be burdened" with their care.

Such thinking bears an eerie and unsettling resemblance to that of the eugenicists of the early 20th century.  Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood (the largest provider of abortions in America today), believed in the use of abortion to "stop the multiplication of the unfit," ostensibly those whose existence is "detrimental" to society.  As a racist, she believed the unfit included blacks.  However, like many of her contemporaries, she also believed that the unfit included those with mental and physical disabilities.  Germany's Nazis took the concept to its logical end, slaughtering hundreds of thousands of the disabled (alongside millions of others considered unfit).

Now, am I calling those who see the cost to government as a compelling argument Nazis?  No.  However, I am saying that line of thinking is dangerously close to the disregard for human life expressed by eugenicists and Nazis.  That's just my opinion, of course.

Something I hear few people mention regarding abortion is the effect it has on women.  Abortion does not only affect the status of one's pregnancy, but also has the potential to have serious health effects outside of that.  One would be hard-pressed to learn that, however, as statistics on those effects are uncommon.  Often, the argument is that because abortion is legal, it is now safe.  However, that safety is never defined as few discuss the risks associated with abortions in the first place.

Abortion is treated so casually these days, I am fairly certain that most women who pursue them are oblivious to the potential physical and psychological risks associated them (whether people on the pro-choice side realize it or not).  I was most certainly never taught about these risks before becoming solidly pro-life.  And now many would merely dismiss what I know as pro-life propaganda.  For example, this short (and cited) summary from the Family Research Council helps to reinforce what I believe are the dangers associated with abortion.  Yet even that summary uses language that is not particularly definitive due to a serious lack of studies, despite abortion's legalization nearly forty years ago.

I could go on, but at this point, I am reaching 750+ words and could probably find enough material to give this series another two or three articles.  As such, I will move on from this and hope to present a new topic next week.  I hope that "On Choosing Life" was informative and thought-provoking.