God's Will Versus Human Will In Abortion

http://thecollegeconservative.com/2012/10/25/i-stand-with-richard-mourdock/

http://thecollegeconservative.com/2012/11/02/pro-life-burn-a-hummer-and-prove-it/

Less than a week ago, a woman in Ireland died because the country’s abortion laws apparently prevented even a health based procedure to save a woman who had miscarried. Apparently the Irish government neglected to learn that abortions can be elective or spontaneous and that not all abortions are done because people are “whores” or “sluts”. In the case of this woman dying, the line that sums it up is “They valued the life of a 4 month old fetus over that of a 30 year old woman” I am glad our own country isn’t so stringent and ridiculous on such things, but there are still people that insist that every pregnancy is a gift from God, including those that result from rape or incest, as well as those that would threaten a woman’s life. My very first blog post spoke about this topic and how it was irresponsible and selfish of Tim Tebow’s mother to insist on the pregnancy when she and her unborn child were in danger. Pro life as a position should not mean you get to endanger lives on purpose and say you value life and hold it sacred at the same time. By no means am I suggesting forced abortions, since that would contradict my values of individual choice and liberty as a libertarian at heart. But inversely, someone should not be able to claim their liberties are being trampled on when they are, in their own general metaphysics, forcing a child to be born in cases where teens could get an abortion and move on with their lives, learning from their mistake. Societal pressure is a strong influence, however, and you have women feeling like they commit a horrible crime, even a sin, when trying to make a choice between themselves and something that isn’t even remotely human in appearance in many cases when the pregnancy is discovered.

Any involvement of God in these situations is next to nothing, especially if we assume from the get go that God cannot interfere when it comes to human free will. And it also makes perfect sense to say that rape children cannot, in any way, shape or form, be a part of God’s will, because that would mean God either forced a human to rape or had no problem with one of its creations being violated for some greater good that could’ve been advanced in a far less violent manner. I’m not saying there can’t be good that results from evil, but rape is one of, if not the most horrible things a human can experience and survive next to attempted murder. A God that would create good things from such horrors is far distanced from the human experience and could accurately be termed a sociopath with no empathy.

Partial birth abortion, strongly opposed by many so called “pro life” advocates, is simultaneously death and life, but is a life saving procedure similar to some abortions (ectopic pregnancies or the like, for instance) in that if you don’t do it in particular cases for which it’s performed, both the mother and child will die. Do you want that on your conscience or do you think that death is preferable to life? If the latter, then how can you really consider yourself pro life? A more overarching idea of what pro life means is preferable to using the term to mask your anti abortion stance because you don’t want to be anti something, you want to be pro something. Be honest and just say you’re against abortion instead of saying you’re for protecting life and yet care nothing about people’s liberties to manage their reproduction or otherwise. Valuing life over liberty may make sense sequentially, but it makes no sense ethically. Basic logic does dictate you need to value life in order to truly value liberty, but to preclude liberty in order to protect life is far more counterintuitive than accepting that sometimes life must be sacrificed for liberty, especially if it cannot be adequately provided for or is not viable in a world where artificial womb technology does not exist.'

A middle ground can be met. One should not take sex so casually and irresponsibly, which will prevent unintended and unwanted pregnancies, leading to a decrease in abortions for reasons of pure convenience and selfishness. The abortions that are absolutely necessary are those that would save a woman’s life from accidental pregnancies that threaten her physical or mental health. Abortion is not birth control and shouldn’t be used as such, not only because it’s more expensive, but it becomes wasteful of potential life, which has its own value, especially to prospective parents, especially adoptive ones who either cannot have children themselves or want to provide for what amount to orphans. Instead we can “waste” what are renewable resources: namely the sperm the body produces. So that’s yet another abortion related post from me. We’re getting close to 200 posts and I’ll be doing something special for that, I hope. Until next time, Namaste and aloha.

Women Can Ask For Help And Still Help Themselves

http://thecollegeconservative.com/2012/07/31/obama-campaign-ad-victimizes-women/

http://thecollegeconservative.com/2012/08/20/life-as-an-anti-women-woman/

Since the elections are coming up within a few months, Obama’s campaign ads are becoming more visible in popular media. One concerning Mitt Romney and his stances on abortion has created predictable controversy with the right wing alleging it “victimizes women” among other things. A lot of the vitriol comes in the form of antiquated stances on abortion rights and also claims that “Obamacare” is infringing on religious liberty by making religious organizations, but not churches specifically, fund contraception. I briefly mentioned this two months ago in “Where Religion andPolitics Should Not Cross” and “Catholics, Contraception and Conscience”, both of which made the point that contraception is not a license to have sex without any sense of discipline or self control and it shouldn’t be encouraged merely for the pleasure of others. Viewed as preventative healthcare, it is within the Affordable Health Care Act’s structure to cover it under insurance plans. Women are still in a state in inequality, particularly with men and women stuck in a backwards thinking paradigm where females are regarded as subservient, and in order to advance forward, abortion rights must be enforced more effectively. There may not be a literal war on women, but the “fairer sex” is still treated as if they need to be coddled, instead of given the same standing as a man in terms of reproductive health, which includes both contraception and abortion as medical practices. And it is a scary time to be a woman, even if the president doesn’t hold full sway over legislation. The influence the executive branch has cannot be denied and the effect of peoples’ votes in terms of partisan politics cannot be overstated. If Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan win the election, women are in danger of having all their advancements be set back almost half a century if the Republicans have their way, and they have a slight numerical advantage in Congress, not to mention the Supreme Court. So the fight against these anti abortion agendas is that much more difficult with the branches of government stacked against women’s rights. Men should recognize this problem and seek to find a solution, which does not mean treating women as delicate flowers or anything, since they go through far more difficulty than men do psychologically and socially, let alone biologically. They deserve a bit more recognition and fairness in politics than they appear to get.

First off, you aren’t victimizing women in the literal sense when you say they are under attack in some sense by political campaigns. If you observe that they are victims of something else, that is different than making them your victim. There might be a claim of painting women as victims, but this is demonstrably different than an explicit claim of Democrats and social liberals “victimizing” women in their abortion rights policymaking. This is not to say that women are asking for special treatment with insurance coverage of contraception, since it could be equally justified for insurance providers to cover male contraception, since they can be argued to be preventative healthcare.  Romney is admittedly out of touch with women, due in part to his upbringing as a conservative Mormon, but also because he’s a man. I’m also guilty of being out of touch with women, not being one myself. But I can at least empathize or sympathize in trying to aid them in gaining what I’d call reproductive equality under the law, which was gained in part through Roe v. Wade, but not entirely. To claim the Obama campaign is creating an artificial status of victimhood is still flawed, since any examples of sex selective abortion procedures, women who suffer psychological repercussions from abortions or even women who have died from abortion procedures are far and above exceptions to the rule, Abortions are far safer when they are regulated and can be prevented by sex education and proper birth control application through the same entity that does abortions which constitute only about 3% of their services.

Planned Parenthood seems to be one of the larger targets in the proverbial “war on females” as I’d say, even though women and females are distinguished by age. The claim from conservatives is that they are encouraging sex, which then leads to pregnancy, which then necessitates their abortion services and thus is creating a circle of exploitation. First off, to reiterate, statistics suggest that a minute amount of PP’s services are abortion related. The rest are various forms of contraception, mammograms, pap smears and other preventative measures to guard against STDs, various female cancers that can spread if not checked and generally maintain reproductive health. But Planned Parenthood isn’t creating a cycle if they are encouraging both a happy and responsible sex life, which would prevent unwanted pregnancies, which would also lower the rate of abortions they’d have to perform. And women are not being portrayed as sexualized objects merely because they admit they have a sex life and want to have safety measures concerning pregnancy, STDs, etc. Quite the contrary, women would be at least partly desexualized when their value is severed from their reproductive functions. Illegalizing abortion or making reproductive health and rights not a primary aspect of policy would reduce women to breeders in that they are not expected to be able to choose not to have children or delay childrearing until they are more financially or emotionally prepared. Ultimately the argument that the GOP and conservatives either don’t understand women or don’t understand the sexist and misogynist positions of social conservatism is only bolstered by recent revelations about their platform and the major figures of the party supporting anti choice and anti woman legislation in practice, even if they say the  principles are the opposite.

Men shouldn’t try to argue that this is special treatment for women, since women are biologically the only members of our species to have children, so giving them a basic legal right to abortion is not any different than men choosing to get a vasectomy, though it is admittedly a bit more extreme than birth control for men that does exist; it kills sperm through a layer of material in the male genitals that allows for urination and the like. Women are not simply their uteruses and are definitely not mere domestics meant to serve men by any means. Women deserve equality in career pay; supposedly they are still only paid 75 cents to the dollar compared to the other sex. Women also deserve basic equal career opportunities: as long as they are qualified, the fact that they have breasts and a vagina should not factor in unless it’s particularly relevant to the job (i.e. a Chippendale’s dancer) Men have more status in this society than they realize. The Bible favors them in terms of marriage, since they can divorce with some grounds and women cannot. Then there’s the obvious problem of men being able to walk alone without much fear of being sexually assaulted, while women are still harassed to this day and have to walk in groups so as not to be molested or, worse, raped. Both men and women should feel remotely safe from sexual assault in this modern age.

It’s fair to say that perhaps government sponsorship of contraception could create the wrong impression at first, but it’s not as if males aren’t getting special treatment from culture, as established prior, so women getting support from the government to advance their reproductive rights evens out the playing field. Now women could conceivably be more self sufficient in other areas when they can maintain a responsible and regulated sex life, severing them from the expectation that they will just be housewives and raise children while men continue to be breadwinners. This sexist and outdated idea only persists because there is a mutual agreement to that setup in a marriage and/or family. Because of this, women become repressed and generally stifled from the potential they have. There isn’t a reason to stratify jobs based on sex or gender unless it’s a prerequisite from the start (see my Chippendales example or consider a Playboy Bunny as a counterexample). The capacities men and women have for jobs are as generally equal as job skills tend to be considered, so that shouldn’t be the issue. Women’s reproductive rights and health have been sacrificed for too long for the convenience, prejudice or ignorance of men. It’s time to make a change. Until next time, Namaste and aloha.

Pro Choice or Pro Liberty

http://thecollegeconservative.com/2012/03/30/liberals-arent-really-pro-choice-political-rhetoric-vs-actual-meaning/

I’ve been especially critical in multiple articles about whether pro life is a label anyone should use so casually or even at all unless they’re willing to take a position that covers the whole of what is loosely considered life, from pre birth to death. But pro choice is something just as polarizing and I haven’t gotten into any detail about why it’s just as problematic an idea, or at least very simplistic. With pro life, it is implied opponents are pro death, which doesn’t follow at all. It’s even ironic if the opponents are anti war, a leading cause of death in the basic sense. Even if abortion is a form of death, it is far more regulated and safe when done correctly than war could ever be, explicitly involving a direct risk to one’s life and safety. Pro choice creates a perception that opponents are anti choice. This isn’t the case in most examples of people who are pro life. They’re the type who would personally not get an abortion, but would not try to eliminate the option of abortion outright, but merely advise against it. Those that bomb abortion clinics or kill abortion doctors are the exception to anti abortion rights pundits. Though it might not be fair to say that those that are personally against abortion are against it being legal, but want stricter regulations on it, which is fair in the same way that we require proper labeling for alcohol and cigarettes, which many have personal objections to but are nonetheless perfectly legal to purchase when of proper age. The notions of choice and liberty are important to a nuanced distinction between being pro choice and pro liberty.

If you are pro choice in either sense, either personally choosing or not choosing abortion, you value the ability of any other person to make a choice. If you think women should be forced to carry a baby, even if to give it up for adoption, this is on what pro choice creates as the opposition, one who actually does not want a person to even have the ability to choose to have an abortion, by illegalizing or stigmatizing the process of abortion itself. To be pro choice is not necessarily to be pro abortion, but pro choice in the general sense, which conservatives and liberals can support in the commonly held ideal of personal liberty without the government’s intervention. Privacy is inevitably connected with liberty and choices we make, since many choices we make are fundamentally, though not absolutely, private. When those choices are protected by people’s liberty from government intervention, we have more freedom in general without it becoming excessive.

The difficulty people would bring up in terms of the accuracy of the pro choice label is that it seems to only apply to a select few areas, namely: abortion, birth control, marijuana, and a few other areas. In terms of other things, conservatives may bring up government mandates through “liberal” courts, such as energy taxes and the healthcare system enacted by President Obama two years ago. I won’t go into whether they are or are not excessive government intervention, but I agree that consistency is something that should go both ways in political parties. One cannot criticize a pro lifer for also advocating the death penalty and not reflect on whether you are really pro choice in all areas or only when it may benefit you directly. I don’t want to sound like a strong right wing conservative, since those just create more problems than they solve in a similar way that more statist left wing liberals do. Extremes of either side are equally problematic. If you try to suppress things, they only become more desirable to people in their illegality. But letting everything go with vague ideas of what boundaries should exist is equally problematic in that it creates a sort of slippery slope that might actually be taken seriously. If you don’t establish remote absolutes in terms of what is considered damaging to marriage, for instance, the claims that you’d just as soon marry anything to anything else is not completely unlikely, though still a logical fallacy. Maintaining a balance between over inclusivity and over exclusivity is difficult when we have a variety of issues that assault us, abortion being one of those that is very contextual as to when using it constitutes leisure or necessity.

To be pro choice might be a bit too permissive in saying that you value all choices. It’s one thing to value people’s liberty, which works both in restraint and freedom of actions, but it’s another to endorse any choice by a more general idea of what the label implies. You’re free to drive drunk? You’re free to take illegal drugs? You’re free to do any number of irresponsible things? Not at all. Libertinism is not and should not be what people think of in terms of liberalism and liberty. Any good thing is done in moderation, to quote Aristotle, a philosopher who existed in a very different time from ours.

Another inquiry comes to mind from critics of the pro choice position: if you are pro choice, why would you advocate government intervention in many other areas of life, not to mention birth control? With the recent mandate concerning contraception as relates to religious institutions being adjusted to apply to the insurance providers instead of the religious institution itself, it seems potentially counter intuitive to claim you are pro choice, but also want the government to pay for your birth control and thus subsidize your choices. It’s one thing to be used for preventative purposes, but some may very well abuse it for simple promiscuity. I’m not saying this is the necessary progression, but the mindset behind some activism may be in direct conflict with what pro choice, and pro liberty advocates by association, support, which are informed decisions based on the facts and not through societal pressures. Pro choice should not try to enable choices through the government’s aid, but facilitate an environment where people are allowed to make choices, rewarded for good ones, punished for bad ones, and each response appropriate to the decisions made. There shouldn’t be any sort of implication that there aren’t consequences for actions, for better or worse. To make choice something more than a method to facilitate one’s advancement, but also edify one’s character, there must be limits on how far political actions should step into managing choices. Sometimes, choices should be permitted, with reasonable regulations, even if there are those that are morally opposed to it. We’ve done it with tobacco and alcohol, why a sudden opposition to marijuana, for example? And abortion is a procedure that is necessary until obstetrics are developed into science fiction levels of technology to preserve fertilized eggs and the like in artificial wombs. If it is done responsibly and prevented with adequate use of birth control, then there is no reason to fear it as a choice that is abused for malicious purposes or focus on profits instead of people.

If we value such things as our right to control our bodies, our sexual health, what we put into our bodies, etc, then it behooves us to neither be overly strict on regulating the various aspects of life that present both benefits and risks, nor too loose and breezy with letting things just progress as they will and solving the problem as it comes. Being able to prevent eventual problems instead of acting within immediate threats is the mark of a mind that is both able to think on its proverbial feet and also think of the potential issues without clouding present judgment. Such a thing as abortion is reasonably able to be reduced if birth control is taught in schools within reason. No one should interpret this as forcing sexuality in an unhealthy and perverse manner upon schoolchildren. Teaching youth about such things is natural and should be handled with care, I agree. But it should not be left entirely to parents, many of which are very busy and seem unable to manage time with their children beyond leisure and basic manners. Sexuality and the like are pushed back on the system they initially only depended on for education in the academic subjects. If that be the case, educate children about real life as well, in a balanced portion to mathematics, language and sciences. Responsibility is not something only parents can teach. Schools can educate students on this and not be overstepping any implied boundaries. We should never value merely the choices we can make, but those we choose not to make. That is the fullness of choice as it is subsumed within liberty. Until next time, Namaste and aloha

Visibility and Viability

http://thecollegeconservative.com/2012/01/31/not-just-a-blob-of-cells/

The recent controversies involving Planned Parenthood’s funding and President Obama’s healthcare mandate involving birth control (and subsequent compromise on it) make one think of related topics such as abortion, more specifically rules such as the one in Texas, and recently in Virginia, that requires a sonogram before an abortion procedure. I’m not going to debate the lawfulness of it, since it’s hardly unreasonable or invasive to the woman getting the procedure done. Someone might compare it to looking at your cancer, though the dichotomy is somewhat crude, since cancer is necessarily damaging, while an embryo is not nearly so devastating. But the claim by many pro life/anti abortion advocates that pro choice/abortion rights supporters are dehumanizing the embryo or fetus being aborted is sorely mistaken. I am in no way denying the humanity of the entity that is aborted. I compare abortion to euthanasia in that it is done because the options are few and sometimes active death is more merciful than passive death, though in this case, miscarriage as the passive death is not the inevitability. There has to be consent of the people involved, but contrary to people’s emotionally touching, but fallacious, arguments, the fetus cannot consent and thus is irrelevant to the decision. Even partial birth abortions cannot request the consent of the fetus. If the goal of medicine is to preserve life, then abortion seems contradictory at first glance. But life’s quality is as important as life’s existence. And abortion is a way to advance this. I do not wish abortion to exist indefinitely as a primary recourse to unwanted pregnancy for a number of reasons, not all of them related to the procedure itself. If we had technology to preserve zygotes, embryos and fetuses for future mothers to be or surrogates, it would be excellent for infertile couples or those looking to adopt through surrogacy. But more important than the wasteful practice of aborting what can be children for the childless who truly want them is that pregnancies can be prevented more than people are even motivated to with birth control. The goal seems to be more in line with the Quiverfull movement popularized by the Duggard family who miscarried a child last year: that ideal being to have as many children as God deems you to have. The same could be said to be an agenda for Catholics, with their strong stance against birth control, though it is alleged by some studies that 90% or more of Catholic couples use contraception for one reason or another, if only to prevent having more children than they can fiscally support. If you are pro life to the extent of ignoring consequences of excessive children, you’re being as irresponsible as one who uses abortion as birth control. We should not seek to have children just for the sake of making ourselves feel comfortable about not having “sacrificed” a child in any sense, nor should we just sacrifice children as if they are necessarily an inconvenience in every situation. Sometimes that is what we must do, if not for our sake, but for the future child’s sake. Would any child that could understand the state of a birth defect or congenital disease want to be born that way to just die in under 5 years? Abortion is not always about convenience, but is many times about compassion.

Many abortion opponents also say that since the child is genetically unique from conception it should be protected by virtue of that, since it is a separate body. There are two things wrong with this. Firstly, the uniqueness of any human life does not mean we should force a woman to carry that life to term if she does not want to or feels she cannot provide a fulfilling life for it. There’s an argument from a libertarian perspective of the woman’s body being invaded unless she consents to the pregnancy itself. It’s one thing to consent to sex, but the pregnancy is not a guarantee. Even if it’s a natural process, we can, within reason, stop it, but if nature succeeds anyway, there is no reason for us to always submit to it. To put it bluntly, there is not right to live inside another person, for women are not understood simply as creatures able to breed and thus should not be pressured into doing it by virtue of their ability to do so. Plus, adoption, often touted as a compassionate option, is one fraught with red tape and protracted waiting periods, so the child would be in an orphanage until then. Secondly, even if a woman sees an embryo with a heartbeat of sorts, she should also be informed that it is only unique genetically. It is not even remotely independent and is in fact interconnected with the woman’s metabolism and physiology, which is what causes morning sickness and eventually saps the woman of part of her everyday intake of nutrients and even some of her calcium directly from her bones. This is something that constitutes a parasite, even if it is done with the woman’s consent in most cases, excluding rape. So let it be clear that the fetus is not independent except in the possibility of it being born, which is in the future, not the immediate moment as it gestates.

Then there’s the claim that we reduce the embryo to a “blob of cells”. A zygote is very much technically a blob of cells going through meiosis.  And we’re all blobs of cells when you think about it, albeit on a larger scale.  The mere possibility of a life coming to being does not constitute grounds to protect it. If a parent or parents wish to carry the child to term, that is one thing, but it seems a bit manipulative, even if it is reasonable medical procedure, to show a pregnant woman a sonogram of the developing baby in some attempt to appeal to her emotions or more likely her guilt at “snuffing out a life” Viability should be considered as well. As harsh as it sounds and as I said before, sometimes hard decisions must be made and eliminating lives that are not even remotely viable is not something that is significantly lowering our birth rate. Plenty of people are personally pro life even if they are politically pro choice, so in the long run people will keep having babies even if there is a segment of the population that will consider abortion first. Moral disagreement aside, the legality of abortion stands on grounds of privacy that is not invasive to the rights of others. This sort of autonomy is not victimizing embryos or such, since they are not even remotely conscious in most abortions, done around 13 weeks or so. The comparison to euthanizing an animal is a bit crude, I’ll admit, but effective nonetheless in that the animal is less conscious than a human about its pain and the embryo or fetus even less so. Therefore the moral justification is partly based on the grounds that the entity aborted feels no significant pain unless it is sufficiently developed, which is done much more uncommonly than those where the embryo is only beginning to show human traits.

The value of life as a whole does not supersede the value of individual liberty. And while liberty cannot exist without life, the significance of autonomy is wasted on something that cannot even remotely understand its situation. A woman, however, does and should not be forced or pressured into making a choice she does not think is best for her or those connected to her, past, present or future. Bringing up practices in other countries of aborting female children or the common practice of aborting babies with Down syndrome or the like does not support claims that abortion as a whole is genocidal. Abortion is a medical procedure and while it will probably never go away entirely as fertility technology advances more and more, Planned Parenthood’s motto of making abortion safe, legal and rare is aided by birth control and as we understand abortion procedures, they are made safer as well with safer methods. No one is saying abortion should be the default, but the very existence of it as an option is not damaging to the birth rate, nor is it dehumanizing the embryo involved, since it is only barely human in the nominal sense and is certainly not a person that is deserving of protection. Birth is far more significant biologically to the child in terms of both becoming independent from the mother and beginning to develop more in the world where it interacts more directly, through sight, touch, etc. These sorts of discussions can be hard, but they are also important to understanding where our morality and politics intersect. Until next time, Namaste and aloha

Abortion Rights Past and Present

http://www.thefrisky.com/post/246-hmm-do-you-think-your-reproductive-rights-dont-need-defending/

http://www.newsweek.com/id/236506

I decided to wait until after my stay in Nashville for 8 hours or so at MTAC in Nashville to post this, but ended up staying until about 1PM on Sunday. But I’m pressing forward to get this article out by Monday. I found an article on either Thursday or Friday confronting the issue of younger supporters of abortion in contrast to the older generation that fought for Roe v. Wade in the 70s. The issue that seems crucial to the two page article is that the so-called “postmenopausal militia” that had a genuine interest and experience of the suffering that came about through the illegalization of abortion and their fight to give women what was an extension of the right to privacy, while the younger generation doesn’t have that vested interest or recognition of the importance of the right to abortion that was given by Roe v. Wade. This is especially relevant in a culture that continues to strive to give women equal rights even today.

There is a counter argument on the alleged liberation of women, that in fact it only empowers men to exploit women all the more, since there is no longer the risk of an unwanted pregnancy that they must apparently feel obligated to take responsibility for. While I do recognize the importance of taking responsibility for your actions, if you are a couple that was committed to putting off children for a few years and your birth control failed unexpectedly, abortion as an option is empowering to both members of the relationship, the woman in that she maintains control of what is primarily, though not solely, her reproductive capabilities, and the man in affirming that he is not pressuring her into an abortion or the reverse; that in fact, he supports her decision after discussing it with her and respecting what is not completely his area to criticize, however much he contributed to the pregnancy.

The difficulty with the analysis of the writer, one of the NARAL supporters, NARAL being an acronym for National Abortion & Reproductive Rights Action League, previously a more confusing acronym of National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws; confusing because abortion laws can potential swing one way or another. But the intent is still evident with recent passing of restrictive laws in Nebraska, claiming a fetus can feel pain at 20 weeks, which while debatable, is where NARAL still has relevance for consideration by younger supporters of abortion rights such as myself and other local groups in my community. If these laws continue to be passed, abortion may very well slip into pseudo-illegality again and the quest for reproductive justice of sorts will have to start all over again, or at least work that much harder to repeal the laws in some form or fashion. Not to mention there is the problem of anti abortion activists and the potential violence that can occur in one way or another. I’m certainly not claiming everyone who opposes abortion rights for whatever reason is going to try to kill abortion doctors, like what happened to George Tiller last year. But I would say that many protestors who insist on focusing the debate on the fetus, using especially maligned pictures to try to shock women into choosing life are committing psychological violence upon the woman, more than what she is already going through making a difficult decision to secure the future for what she hopes for; a child she can provide for and not have to give up to a system that may leave the child orphaned for their childhood.

The issue of abortion rights should be a balanced consideration of what are admittedly biological and ethical concerns on the one hand for the potential life or person considered within a particular perspective and also the interpersonal and psychological regards for the people involved: the woman, her family, her significant other, and the people involved with the abortion procedure. There is no reason to dehumanize the people involved with abortion or excessively anthropomorphize what is demonstrably human in genetics only until a particular stage of development (you know, the part where the gills and tail go away?). And there is a need to pursue a consideration of issues beyond the individual woman getting an abortion. To consider how her choice affects others is not succumbing to pro life rhetoric or even stooping to their level, except when you are focusing solely on the negatives and primarily on the alleged other that is technically intertwined with her in a sense. If I consider how a friend’s choice to abort affects me, it’s different and more distant than if we consider the varied ways her family could react or how the abortion clinician will treat her, since I would imagine there are a few ways you can present abortion. In this way, we shouldn’t boil the issue down to purely scientific issues, but we also shouldn’t boil it down to purely abstract ethical ideas that tend to make people think in black and white terms and never have any compassion beyond the in group that is being persecuted. Broadening the horizons of the abortion rights debate will open doors that were not there before and close doors that have been open too long, including such atrocities as the complete banning of partial birth abortions (some of which would save the woman’s life, even at the loss of the fetus) and the pushing back of alleged viability or sensitivity towards the fetus’ supposed rights. Until next time, Namaste and Aloha.