Abortion....

So, a few days ago I was in a heated discussion/debate with a few friends on the subject of abortion. I, being pro-choice, was matched up against two pro-life supporters with the aid of another pro-choice endorser. Although they won't say that they're pro-life because of certain provisos which I'll mention later, you could say that they champion most of the arguments and philosophies authored by authoritative figures who are pro-life. I am a staunch pro-choice person and my unequivocal nature of spewing out my ideas was definitely challenged. They definitely brought interesting and thought-provoking ideas. However, I think I was able to persuade them and even prove to them that fundamentally, they themselves were in fact, pro-choice.

Now, the battle for those who are pro-choice is usually one fought against Christian fundamentalists (at least in the government). Before I get into the meat of the discussion around abortion, I want to know what happened to separating church from state. I think its criminal for any religious bipartisan who is an arbiter to inflict their subjective nature based on their religious mores on a constitution that is laden with statutes that promise the American people certain liberties. Although it may seem as though Christianity pervades this country more than any other religion, elected officials must understand and act politically as though no one is adhering to any given religion. Thus, people should be regulated as such. This is why you have so much tension in rural areas of the deep south where activists are advocating for sex education but they're being throttled by local governmental religious partisans who believe that people should not have sex before marriage. By the way, I think thats totally naive. You cannot expect everyone to be abstinent in a country as "free" as this one. Its only right, responsible and necessary to implement sex education in those communities. The people in those areas who are not Christian fundamentalists are becoming enthralled to the pervasive religion. The nerve of these Christian conservatives. I actually think the words Christian Fundamentalism and Liberalism are antonyms of each other. Forgive my digression.

Christian fundamentalists would posit that abortion is murder. They would contend that any egg that has been saturated by a sperm is a human being and thus the termination of that human being's life through the will and intent of the mother or any other person via abortion should be stipulated as murder. Although there is an ongoing discussion about when the fetus actually becomes a human being, I'll still entertain that assertion. First, there aren't any laws that are a part of the constitution that guarantees the right of anything that is a not a human or animal. So, if indeed a consensus arises that says that fetus' are not human beings, technically that fetus does not have the right to life and thus the act of abortion would be permissible because it would not be murder. However, if the fetus is recognized as a human being, I argue that that "human being" does not have the right to body of the mother. Although the "fetus/human being" is dependent upon the mother's body for survival, that does not mean that it has the right to utilize the mother's body. There are no laws that stipulate a human being as the right to another human being's body. If that were the case, someone who was facing potential terminal illness would have the right to another human being's body if that was the necessary procedure needed to continue their existence. Since the "fetus/human being" does not have the right to the mother's body, she is fully within her right to remove it from her womb.

The people that I was having a debate with exclaimed that they had no sympathy for those who irresponsibly create unwanted pregnancies and consequently seek abortions. They even said that they thought having the child was their punishment for being irresponsible. This is where the discussion transforms into a moral/ethical one. Now, I will never view a childbirth as retribution for the parents who conceived an unwanted child. I do understand my adversaries positions, however, I do not endorse their philosophy. I definitely do not think that someone who carelessly conceived a child should be punished by being forced or coerced into having the child. Despite the circumstance, I still support the idea that they should be able to choose whether or not they want to have the child. The area where many pro-life people have gotten in "slippery slopes" is when they mention certain exceptions to abortion. These exceptions often entail circumstances that raped women or women who face potential health risks might incur. Now, its not that the pro-life people are saying they don't have to have the child, but they believe because of the unfortunate and life-threatening circumstances that may face these women, they should have the right to choose if they want to have the child. Isn't that idea fundamentally pro-choice? That's where I think I stumped my opponents.

The suggestion that my opponents did offer was that the law should incorporate certain exceptions to the rule of abortion and certain circumstances would afford people the opportunity to gauge whether or not they want to have a child, such as the example of rape. I really don't think that idea would work. There would be too many ways in which people could engage in some sort of collusion in order to create circumstances to attain amnesty and evade prosecution for abortion. For example, someone could could argue in front of a judge that they have been threatened if they have a child and that they will be killed by someone they cannot identify. It doesn't matter how inane that may seem, I'm pretty confident there will be people who will take their cases (some like the aforementioned example) to court and that would be too much of a burden on the justice system.

Another interesting question that has been raised around abortion is that should the father of the child have the right to choose whether or not the mother should have the child. I say no because if that were allowed, then the man's will of the mother's body would be an extension of those in office who are trying to regulate the bodies of women. I've said this time and time again. I do not think an elected official should be able to regulate the bodies of people. The counter-argument that I've gotten is that the laws that stipulate rape, murder, battery, assault, and manslaughter are all punishable by law, are all laws that regulate the bodies of people. But those are clearly different situations. The topic of abortion is unique because of all the controversial and unanswered questions that surround and it should be treated as such. Worse than religious bipartisanships, I think its a damn shame that the primary officials who are deciding what women can do with their bodies are men. Those boards, houses and courts are completely void of any empathy and a key understanding of the womans body because they lack the essential element to garner that empathy and understanding: Women! The intricacy of women's body is being undervalued and that is extremely unfortunate.

Bottom line is this. There are too many ways that would exist for people to circumvent the law if there were exceptions to abortion. In addition, there are too many unanswered questions that compromise the issue of abortion. Abortion has been debated for decades by some of the most authoritative biologists and philosophers ever to inhabit this planet. I think, in order to quell all of this banter, the government should cease trying to justify the regulation of women's bodies and give them right to exercise their own discretion on whether or not they want to have a child. Period. If abortion is soon abolished or stipulated as murder (which it looks like it might be) there will be a pandemic that will have thousands of women curtailing pregnancies illegally like back in the sixties when Jane was on trial. And if that happens.......(sigh)...... Infant mortality rates will sky rocket. Forced pregnancy is morally wrong. The unprepared should not be forced to prepare themselves.

Aside from all this discussion, abortion has been voted on a lot the past few years. Not actually the act of abortion, but rather the trimester in which you could have one. Gradually, the allowable abortion trimesters have been knocked off one by one over the past decade in the Supreme Court. I believe we are down to the last one. The new supreme court justices that Bush Jr. has appointed (who are probably Christian fundamentalists) are pro-life. The last vote was a 5-4 vote in favor of allowing abortion in the first trimester. If there is one more supreme court justice appointed to the Supreme Court who is pro-life, or if one current supreme court justice is persuaded or coerced (which is not dubious at all), then we may all be in for one hell of a ride.

Parting Thoughts:
I hate finals.
I'm glad school's over.
Did you know nursing, which used to be a menial job reserved for women, is now an occupation whose pay is equivalent to that of a starting professor and is occupied now by more men than women? Crazy.....
There is now the possibility that Duke Ellington may be considered the foremost greatest and heralded musical composer in American history. <-----Incredible.


Oh yeah, If you want to hear my take on abortion musically, check this out. One day, I'll land on the Digable's planet...