(Disclaimer: I have tried to keep away from more sensitive political and religious subjects on my blog for a long time. I like my venting about work, and my science and other happy and sad things I encounter in my life but this post is venting since I can not whisper even a word about it at work... and since lots of people I work with agree with the people debating in South Carolina this weekend and they have a tendency to talk loud at work about certain aspects of all these "woman issues" and "feminist liberal stuff like you like, right?" and "the obvious questions as Where you go to church" I felt today - when I'm stranded at home due to car failure I could venture out into venting land.... especially since I am thinking about placing money on that in 10 years time, there will be no abortions allowed in the US anymore. And I wonder if the morning after pill, which is not an abortion pill, would be legal even with a prescription and being over 21... I should see if Vegas has a line and what the odds are? If I'm going to be living in a country like that, I might as well have some money gained from it to facilitate my move....)
The quote would be what my professor in philosophy said to me after reading one answers of my first mid-term. I didn't understand what he meant at the time. I had argued in favour for legal abortion, as in saying that I would think it is ethical at a certain time in the pregnancy (i.e. before a specific week) since I would call that "within the uncertain time where the embryo/pregnancy/fetus might spontaneously abort" - also referred to as miscarriage). I added an argument that since it is believed that more than 25% of pregnancies would not go to term on their own, and the number is increasing the earlier you look statistically.
His view (the professor), was that I as a science major with arguing this stand point based on the logic that the embryo didn't have a 100% survival rate without intervention - and that this murder was ok, was a slippery slope and not ethically sound if you argue the value of a person is the same as a value of another person. And that in this case, I would've argued that the fetus was a person, the woman was a person and therefore my argument failed in logic. (As a side note, he later made me argue in favour of the death penalty with the help of John Stuart Mill as part of my final exam. That's where I learned ho to argue a standpoint that I might not really agree with - although I might fail on explaining exactly how I deduct my reasoning and conclusion. Anyway, I made an A in that presentation by the way, in case anyone wonders. - not likely)
Anyway, this part of my life has come back to haunt me a little the last couple of months considering the "Personhood movement", i.e. The state of Mississippi voted on proposition 26 - "personhood for embryos", and maybe even more clearly when listening to the Republican debates where the arguments have been numerous in regards to banning abortion to all costs, even when the life of the mother is at stake^*.
It's hard. I'm not saying anything else. When do we get a soul? When are we considered human and people? Well, I don't know. I don't presume to know. I can only weigh fact against facts. And my feelings against feelings. And somewhere in there come to a conclusion that makes sense to me.
And the facts as I have seen them are as follow;
- Women will look for abortions even if they are considered illegal.
- Women in the old ages, when abortions were cause of death penalty and the helper too, still made them and died for it.
- 25% or more of all pregnancies end in miscarriages before week 12.
- Most woman seeking abortion in the US have one or more children already.
- Birth control methods are not included in the "general" health care system, nor is it encouraged...
- Abstinence is encouraged.
- The price of abortions go up for every week of the pregnancy (which was news to me, but when I did some investigation there is apparently several studies to show what this implicates for poorer women who need to save funds to get an abortion, only to realise that they don't have enough money since the procedure is more expensive the next week ... leading to later week abortions, with larger risks for everyone involved)
Therefore, based on that - and the health of woman - I stated then (in my paper) and now - I don't think banning abortion in the early times of pregnancies is i the interest of woman (or men) who are alive considering the fetus.
^* I guess my main problem has been that the argument - although they state they "consider the fetus and the woman to worth equal" - does point to that a full grown woman is less worth than a fetus who, to be honest, has a little to none chance of surviving outside the womb before week 20. And that this scenario might not at all that common, so the notion of bringing it as the main route of the debate is like talking about a very seldom happening but focus all the emotional and nonfactual debate on that specific occurrence. it's like talking about "late-month-abortions", which as far as I know looking at the statistics are in the few 0.02% of all abortions but take up lots more of the time and spread as the "image" of abortions.
And I'm not even going to go into the thoughts I have about it being 4 white men... of which at least one have experienced the situation with "the woman's life being in danger due to a pregnancy" ...
All these comments, instead of maybe referring to the maybe very uncomfortable fact that most abortions (in the US) are made by woman who already have at least one child. That countries with illegal abortions have a higher abortion rate than many countries with legal options. And this all even before mentioning that the address of "WHY woman choose abortion" since if you are really interested in decreasing the practice - wouldn't it make more sense to stop the unwanted pregnancies to even happen? I mean, if you really wanted to look into the problem?
I am not insensitive though, I understand that from a religious perspective the age of the embryo/fetus/child-to-be is irrelevant and therefore all of these practices are considered as vile. It's just that I sometimes get confused that the concern is so alive and loud for these unborn children, when the obvious fact of not caring about the same children when they are out and born are in my face everyday.
