|
As a moderate, I support regulations, but ultimately support a
woman's right to choose to terminate a pregnancy, a fetus, (or a
child, if you prefer) that is in its very early development within
her own womb. I accept that such a choice is horrible, and will
likely scar her forever (although I must add that I have also met
women that mourn the involuntary miscarriage of an early cycle
pregnancy forever).
As an American, I feel strongly that the government should never
impose itself upon a citizen unless there is a substantial and
significant Interest of the state (that's the rest of us) to protect.
At some point, I feel, that fetus (or zygote) is indeed a child, and
it then is in the state's interest to protect its life and well-being
from frivolous termination. But when?
I have read much Abortion information from the internet; from
religious sites, radical libertarians, and the Search
for Common Ground. I will remind you that "common
ground" (portions of an issue that all parties agree to) is not
"middle ground" (a compromise where each party gives and
receives portions of their desired outcome). I do not expect
Americans from either extreme to ever find a "middle ground"
when each considers its own certain "truths" to be both
self-evident and sacrosanct. Yet each can agree to the "common
ground" that abortion is a horrible choice when foisted upon a
pregnant woman lacking access to all choices including delivery and
care, delivery for adoption, delivery with assisted responsibility
(grand-parents, etc), good access to prenatal healthcare and post
delivery supplies. You cannot talk about abortion without talking
about affordable and accessible daycare, healthcare, and job and life
skills. Well, you can if you belong to either extreme. I believe that
everybody, regardless of their personal stand on this issue, wishes
that a magic wand might be waved such that no woman would ever
again choose to abort/kill a fetus/child. This is especially
true where the pregnancy could have simply been avoided through
readily available birth control devices (and the knowledge of their use).
But that is not the same as imposing laws forcing every woman to
carry her pregnancy/child to full term.
In my research on this issue, I have been inspired by the many
stories from adults that logically might have been aborted as fetuses
by their mothers whose pregnancies occurred after Roe v. Wade and
under difficult circumstances or duress. Their testimony and
encouragement for all pregnant women to carry their fetus/baby to
term is inspirational. But their call to legally mandate each woman,
regardless of her own circumstance or desire, to match the heroic
efforts of their own mother's choice to carry to term is unacceptable
in my America.
There is no place more sacred to an American then the interior of
their own body. There simply cannot be a more private place. The
government cannot, insert itself into the very womb of its poor women
citizens. Yes, abortion is about a child, but it is also about a
woman. If that woman, while no personal or economic duress still
chooses to terminate her early pregnancy, the state cannot forbid her
that choice. And it owes her access to a safe and healthy medical
environment for the procedure. The "morning after" pill
(Preven, RU-486) with its inherent risks certainly falls within my
own personal standard of what a woman can do in the privacy of her
own home and to her own body. Legal work-arounds undertaken to
prevent the sale or import of this pill only prevents the poor and
lower classes from employing its use, as the wealthy and savvy can
easily circumvent such systems (witness the war on drugs) or simply
travel abroad. And that is a much larger sin in my America
than abortion. Favoritism of the wealthy and connected over the poor
will inevitably fuel actual class warfare if not checked, and cause
death and suffering that will make all the abortions ever undertaken
pale in comparison. I am constantly surprised to hear those screaming
the loudest about the imaginary government confiscation of guns
(warning of "jack-booted thugs") to then turn around and
demand that those very "thugs" confiscate, impede and
prevent abortion (when the "thugs" finish arresting
recreational marijuana users).
As a moderate, I accept that there comes a point in every pregnancy
that voluntarily terminating it is immoral. I do not want to enter
the debate about viability, quickening, or the onset of fetal pain.
That is a political consideration that I expect to be resolved in the
spirit of political debate and compromise. But that point,
when the state's interest in the fetus/child overrides the mother's,
certainly does not occur at conception. And the mitigating
circumstances of rape, incest, and a fairly low standard for judging
abused minors for emancipation must be included. And it is an
abortion to our legal code to recognize the "murder" of a
fetus (when the murder of a late-term or known pregnant woman could
be simply classified as an "aggravating factor") or for the
state to appoint a guardian to represent the interest of a fetus when
none is appointed to represent the vastly-overwhelming interest of
the comatose or mentally impaired rape victim/mother. Yet, as a
moderate, I am sickened to see such 'to the death' stands taken by
political extremists of the right. If they succeed, a time will come
when they regret their tactic when it is done back to them. While I
recognize that each abortion ends a child's life (like each car
wreck, each drowning, each abduction, each drug overdose), I still
cannot justify forcing a woman to carry an early term pregnancy
against her wishes.
As for late term abortions, I find myself agreeing with
then-President Clinton in begging congress to include "except to
save the life of the mother" language in its bill, and
supporting his veto in the absence of that language. If President
Bush signs such legislation, he will literally be signing a death
warrant to some number of innocent, certainly poor, women. But in
certain circles, political sophistry and fetal rights are more
important, literally, than life itself. Lower class mothers, it seems
to me, are expendable in these circles of hypocrites. We all fear
having to make a trade-life-for-life decision ("if your child
was drowning and you could save her ...") yet we all may find
ourselves in that very situation. The state should not compel me to
jump into a lake, or to "take a bullet" for my child. As it
happens, I gladly would, (but then I would also not choose to abort a
fetus). I cannot support the state intervening and making that choice
for me. Might these same hypocrites eventually rule that I be
imprisoned (for murder?) for choosing to stay on shore and save
myself over my own child? Should a doctor and mother that aborts a
late term pregnancy suffer that fate? (some call for the electric
chair!) As a moderate, I cannot stand for a state so intrusive as to
dictate such actions and punish those that do not accept a death
sentence from Washington, DC. My moderate position on late-term
abortions cannot be more simply put. If the law would include the
obvious exception for the pregnant mother's life, I am sure that all
Americans would be eager to make these seldom used, horrific
late-term abortions illegal.
There is no place more private than the inside of a person's body. I
cannot support the state taking an interest there. Do we not all
agree that if I have a cancerous tumor and choose to let it grow
fatally that I should not be forced by the state to have it removed?
If donating a kidney or giving a blood or bone marrow transplant will
save another's life, that the state should encourage but not compel
me to do so? Even if the recipient, the life that I save, is my own
living child? If we agree that I cannot be compelled to save my own
child, how can a living child (even one day old) have less state
interest than an unborn one? What if a pregnant woman refuses pre-natal
surgery to repair a birth defect? Can she be compelled to quit
smoking? What if she refuses to eat, can the state force-feed her?
What if, in lieu of an abortion, she has a surgeon snip and sew the
placenta shut? Can the state dictate that the placenta, womb, ovary,
entire body of the woman "belong" to the fetus during its
development? What about after "quickening"? As a moderate,
I agree with those that accuse the radical right of caring more about
a fetus than a child or a woman. What a crazy position to take. At
the same time, I cannot support the radical left in its call for
abortion anytime, anywhere. While I desire that no woman ever choose
to terminate an early cycle pregnancy and kill that child (especially
for 'frivolous' reasons), if she does choose, under moderately
regulated circumstances, to have an abortion, it should be safe,
employ the latest technologies to protect her health, and be readily
available regardless of economic class.
That is my personal, moderate position: Equally despised by the
radical right and left. |
