And recently, the debates for and against abortion have seen earnest resurgence; with roads appearing to be leading to America's highest court and perhaps threaten the landmark Roe v Wade decision of 1973.
It's quite interesting to follow the various positions on the issue - from the ultra religious to the liberals, the feminist to the 'won't have an opinion unless it hits home' crowd. At some point or another, I do believe that most people will take a position on the issue whether they opt to verbalise it.
My take?
Abortion is murder
I am anti abortion. Which in this 'get rid of labels unless you disagree with their view then you're a bigot or something' climate, makes me one of the bad guys (or 'bad girls' to be politically correct).
But a suh it guh sometime.
How can the taking of the life of a thing that has an identifiable heartbeat be considered as anything less? Sure the thing requires a host for its survival and development; but is that what makes it less deserving?
How dare you tell me what to do with my body?
One of the quips I've heard recently has been that if abortion is criminalised, then it's only fair that vasectomies be mandated. Clearly this argument is meant for humour than consideration since until it has fertilised an egg, a sperm is basically useless (well so is the egg for that matter since they operate as a team).
The fact is, based on the human anatomy, it's the woman's body that houses and nurtures the foetus. We didn't ask for it. We can't change it. That's just the way it is. Does that fact then give the woman autonomy over whatever is in the womb that's a part of her body? In the same way she can decide to get a piercing or a tattoo, shouldn't she be able to decide what she wants/doesn't want to live inside her? By all means YES! But that autonomy is before anyone moves in. The rules of engagement change when something with a separate life begins to grow within her. Sure it's more akin to a parasite, but a living creature non-the-less.
I find it interesting that some of the loudest voices purporting such malicious destruction are classic 'tree huggers'. Everyone and everything has right to life and protection except this thing?
What I can't wrap my head around is why people are not as loudly advocating for improved pre-pregnancy behaviours and practises. In my mind that's truly how the woman shows she's in control of her body, and the men who care about her show they respect her right to determine what is allowed to grow within it. Not only do we live in a time when there is a wealth of available information on safeguarding oneself; but we live in a time when there are also numerous protection methods that may very well measure better in cost and safety than abortions.
What about victims?
A secondary argument relates to the supposed concern for victims of incest and/or rape. How dare they be forced, after they've been so violated, to then be the hosts of the product of this violation? Which is in effect what anti abortion legislation does.
This is quite a troubling situation and it requires zero contemplation for me to say I wouldn't wish that on an enemy (if I had one) much less myself or someone I cared about. What needs to be readily available are the medications that can prevent fertilisation in the first instance. A victim of such an attack should be able to walk into a medical facility and acquire these with ease. Perhaps with this available, women will become more confident 'the system' really cares and not delay reporting offenders #MeToo.
As a side note, I'd be interested to discover how many seekers of abortion are such victims.
Or what of the women whose lives become at risk because of a pregnancy? Therein lies the only exculpation in my mind. I do believe abortion is murder, but then an abortion in such an instance would be tantamount to self defence. There's no contrary argument from me in a case of justifiable homicide.
Who is really being punished?
So you'd support bringing a child into an environment where it cannot be cared for or is unwanted?
Firstly, I largely doubt it's the poor who make up the bulk of abortion clinics' clientele (unless such procedures are free then I stand corrected).
Secondly, the crux of my argument is the need to help people rethink pre pregnancy attitudes. I hate that some pro-life advocates give the impression that though a pregnancy may have been the result of a man and woman's irresponsible behaviour, it is an opportunity to tsk and wag a finger. Recognising that sometimes pregnancies come because of carelessness is not an opportunity to yell "gotcha!" (at least it shouldn't be) but ill-preparedness cannot be a licence to eradicate life.
We better be careful not to throw the baby out with the bath water.
Because we have broken systems doesn't mean we should resort to measures that are irreversible. No life is accidental. Everyone can effect good or evil. We don't know which and as such it shouldn't be our choice to decide which life to snuff out. And who knows, as a pearl can emerge from an oyster, a traumatic experience can birth greatness. Delusive nonsense? Arguably so.
Furthermore, extensive studies have suggested there is significant negative physical and psychological effect on many women post abortions and this should not be discounted and dismissed.
At the end of the day
It's going to come down to which set of activists are louder, with more money and political clout.
Heck there's butterfly larvae with more protection rights and support than a foetus, sheesh...but I guess it does make some kind of sense. The World needs more natural resources than it does people anyway.
#BabiesLivesMatter?
No comments:
Post a Comment
Always appreciate the feedback <3