03-20-10 Abortion

Of the three things I've written about to date, this is possibly the one that makes people the most upset. My own personal religious views don't matter much in the grand scheme of things, I'm only sending myself to hell for that, but because I am pro-choice I support sending countless unborn to an eternity of hellfire or something.

It's not that I don't like babies, they're pretty cute, it's the fetus that people get all worked up over. There's a difference between the two terms that the West-Michiganian doesn't seem to comprehend. People identify with "baby." It evokes emotion, a drive to care, whereas "fetus" sounds cold and scientific. At some point, however, a fetus stops being a fetus and becomes a baby. But when? This is a difficult question. In the case of Roe v. Wade the courts held that a woman may have an abortion at any point before the fetus becomes viable, generally around 28 weeks. However those at the pro-life end of the debate believe that while a fetus may not yet be viable, it is still a precious, precious life.

At around 8 weeks of gestation the brain begins to form in the embryo, though does not develop as quickly as the rest of the fetus until near the 28th week, during which rapid brain growth occurs. Early in the pregnancy the spinal chord and reptilian brain form (the most basic part of our nervous system that controls autonomic functions such as heartbeat) which results in minute amounts of "brain" activity. Those who oppose abortion see this brain activity as some benchmark of life in the eight to ten week-old lump of cells. My dog is eleven years old and has more brain activity and is a lot smarter than a developing fetus (she even sits on command) but nobody is going to have a riot or bomb a veterinary clinic if she's put to sleep if my family doesn't have the means to take care of her. But if an underclass, single woman is impregnated, by God it's her responsibility to take care of that thing despite financial difficulties. If you don't want babies, don't have sex. Am I right?

No, of course not. This is possibly the worst argument I've ever heard against abortion and absolutely reeks of the Bush Administration's push on abstinence-only sex education (oxymoron, anyone?) I even got to witness this, er, abortion of a curriculum first hand. Not once was the birth control pill mentioned, and the condom was only talked about so far as to warn us students that it didn't work 100% of the time. They didn't even show us one, in fact I hadn't seen one until I transferred to public school and some kid on the bus blew one up like a balloon and let it out the window.

The sort of people who use, "if you don't want babies, don't have sex," are often firmly religious, and firmly against premarital sex. Never mind that there are safe ways to do it, just don't. But what about the married couple that doesn't want kids? Is it OK for the wife to go on the pill? Is it alright for her to have an abortion if pregnancy puts her health at risk? Can't these people enjoy the one upside to a Christian marriage without having to do it for procreation? The answers to these questions should be yes, and if it's alright for a married couple, why not an unmarried one? One always sits on a sofa before buying it. But be safe- put a plastic cover on the couch first.

And, like everything else I disagree with, pro-choice people always have exceptions to their rules. That one special case where maybe an abortion is OK. You'd think it would be rape, wouldn't you? The sex was non-consensual, so any resulting pregnancy could be terminated with a guilt-free abortion. Wrong. The answer to "rape" is "adoption." The correct response is the mother's health. If pregnancy endangers a woman's life, it should be disposed of like any other life-threatening parasite. As far as I can reason, an abortion performed in this case is saving an already established life rather than taking a chance on bringing a new one into the world. I can't see why this line of thought can't be applied to any otherwise normal pregnancy. Assuming I, a 20 year old living at home with a job at a cafe, found myself pregnant I'd most definitely have an abortion. Even if I'm physically capable of delivering the baby without any health risks to it or myself, the arrival of a child would threaten the state of my already-established life and lifestyle by way of a new financial and emotional burden. Even if I wanted to put it up for adoption the costs of staying in the hospital for delivery and potential post-natal care is much more expensive than coughing up the $400 or so for an early-term abortion pill.

I'm sure that seems cruel to some of my readers (hi mom) but that is how a fetus fits into my view of life and death. Nobody can remember being in the womb, in fact nobody really remembers anything from before the age of four, which is around the time the hippocampus finishes developing. I'm not saying that its alright to commit infanticide because toddlers have no long term memory, just that I question the "personhood" of the fetus. It has no memories, reasoning or language faculties, only basic brain functions. If you want an idea of the sort of capabilities a fetus would have if it were viable but had no higher mammalian brain, read this link.

In summary: People think abortion is "killing babies" when a fetus is not a baby; I like my dog better than I like fetuses, charter schools had bad sex ed (nobody ever told me it was fun), wrap your rascal, and nobody is going to hell for having an abortion/being aborted because hell doesn't exist.