The Pro-Choice Movement

[katautumn]

I want to preface my post by stating that I support a woman's legal right to choose whichever path she sees fit in regards to a pregnancy. As I do with any medical treatment. Pregnancy is one of the only situations in which a patient's autonomy can be tampered with by doctors. On that note, I wanted to share my personal feelings about the pro-choice movement at large.

Oftentimes, in an abortion debate, the pro-choice side tends to rabidly argue about the fetus, thus placing them on the same level as the pro-life side only on the opposite end of the spectrum. In fact, the focus is so much on the unborn that choicers are seen as "selfish baby-haters" and lifers are seen as "heartless woman-haters". But I don't want to talk about the pro-life movement. I want to talk about the pro-choice movement.

Ever since Roe vs. Wade made abortion legal and available to women in all fifty states, the opposition has been fierce and the backlash from the pro-choice side equally fierce. I believe this has done a great disservice to women. In trying so hard to downplay the significance of a pregnancy in a woman's life, the pro-choice side has reduced the importance of motherhood both on an individual scale and a global scale. In many abortion debates, the woman involved is very rarely the focal point - rather, the argument about the unborn being human beings worthy of legal protection vs. the unborn being a clump of useless cells. In my opinion, neither are accurate nor appropriate talking points in the abortion debate. The woman, whose rights Roe vs. Wade sought to protect, has been completely overshadowed in the midst of trying to prove whether the unborn child is important or useless. Both sides have placed the fetus on a pedestal, completely ignoring the real issue.

Both sides horribly downplay what a monumental event a pregnancy is in the woman's life. The pro-life side contends that pregnancy is "no big deal" and if "a woman can lay down for a man, she can lay down to have a baby". The pro-choice side contends that pregnancy is large inconvenience and that abortion is "no big deal" because the fetus is merely a parasitic entity. Whether the pregnancy will result in a termination, an adoption or motherhood, the fact remains that real women experience it and it is an event so profound that it will shape the woman's life until she takes her dieing breath.

We cannot continue to deny that abortion can emotionally hurt women. I have read countless essays by leading feminist authorities who have had abortions and described it as one of the most agonizing, humiliating and emotionally draining experiences of their lives.

We cannot continue to pretend that every woman sees babies as a blessing from above and that being pregnant and have a baby is "no big deal".

What we certainly cannot continue to do is make the unborn/fetus/baby (whatever name you choose) the sole talking pointing of the debate and completely overshadow the woman, without whom this debate wouldn't even be in existence. Pro-life side; if the unborn truly are innocent and wonderful, please stop exploiting them. Pro-choice side; please stop downplaying the significance of pregnancy, motherhood and the unborn. Please do not add ammo to the other side's presumptions about us that we're all seflish and cruel by saying the fetus is not human, is a parasite or nothing more than a clump of cells.

It's time that the debate changed as the old strategies are not working for either side any more.

 

[loveiseverywhere]

I would recommend reading ProLife Answers to ProChoice Arguments if you want to understand the ProLife view better. You can probably get it at your local library. No one is saying that pregnancy is easy.

 

[Valgaav]

I'm pro-choice as well. Unless the people were ridiculously irresponsible when having sex (ie, forgot to use contraceptives), then I think abortion is alright. It's especially alright before the cluster of cells becomes a fetus, or before it grows a heart, brain, lungs, etc.

Remember, citizens have rights. But you can't be a citizen if you're not even a human yet.

 

[RealityCheck]

Valgaaz makes a valid point.

There are two things I always point out about the abortion debate, and no one, to date, has ever tried to counter them.

First, the pro-life position that "life begins at conception" is a religious position. This is not a position supported universally by all religions, nor by medical science. The definition of life, of what constitutes "a living human being" versus "an undifferentiated clump of cells", is not universally accepted. Pro-life generally takes the position that life begins at the moment of conception. Fine and dandy if you believe that, but that is NOT accepted by all people of all faiths. I always point out that in traditional Judaism, the belief is that life begins at birth, when the baby takes its first breath outside the womb. This is completely different from "moment of conception."

I don't particularly care what your personal belief is, or how that affects your own decisions and choices. But you simply cannot make your belief about "when life begins" the law of the land when that land specifically is founded on the principle of not promoting one religious belief above any or all others.

If there were a way to concretely define when life begins, then we'd get somewhere. But I have yet to see anything from anyone that does so concretely.

Second, as noted above, our legal system already has a definition of when life begins... or rather, when citizenship begins. It begins at birth. That's when you get a birth certificate. That's when you're assigned a social security number. That's when your parents get to claim you as a tax deduction. And because you've been born in the country and officially documented, you become a citizen of that country, protected under the law as a citizen.

None of that happens prior to birth. If we want to define life legally as beginning at conception, then ought we not assign a social security ID when a child is conceived, rather than born? Shouldn't we have conception certificates rather than birth certificates? Shouldn't parents be able to claim a tax deduction for the unborn, rather than wait till being born?

 

[Robinsegg]

Some interesting points. The basic question becomes: how will we legislate the term "murder"? The reason this is the basic question is because "murder" is a legal term, one that can be defined by the law. It speaks to personhood (though not citizenship), and speaks to legalities.

Right now, the US has an odd dichotomy. If a fetus is killed during the commission of a crime, it's murder (whether the mother wanted the pregnancy or not). But if the mother chooses to kill the fetus, it is not murder. Thus, US law is divided on which entities can be "murdered" instead of simply "killed" (not a legal term).

A fetus is alive and has its' own DNA (I understand embyologists do not dispute that a fetus is human). It is alive, though it may or may not be viable outside the womb. Thus, it can be killed.

Rachel

 

[Skaloop]

Right now, the US has an odd dichotomy. If a fetus is killed during the commission of a crime, it's murder (whether the mother wanted the pregnancy or not). But if the mother chooses to kill the fetus, it is not murder. Thus, US law is divided on which entities can be "murdered" instead of simply "killed" (not a legal term).

Actually, I believe that were a mother to kill her fetus on her own, that would constitute murder. Abortion is legal only when performed (a) with the mother's consent, and (b) by a certified, licensed doctor.

The distinction is really no different than the distinction between a situation where I kill a person for the heck of it, and where I kill a person because they are an imminent threat to me. One's murder, one's not.

 

[LovesToRead]

I used to be prochoice years ago and had an interesting conversation with my cousin, who was more the age of an aunt. I was a teen, she was an adult.

I stated that I thought no one should have a baby they didn't want. She calmly told me that she, herself, was an unwanted baby. Therefore, she could have been aborted.

It's quite interesting to come face-to-face with such a situation. She was not a conservative, religious person either. She was just pointing out her own situation.

And I too, would NEVER say pregnancy is easy.

 

[eddieJ]

Everyone reading this began life as a fertilized egg. The moment your mother's and father's sperm and egg made contact, a unique combination of genetic material, you, began life. It's been photographed, by scientists. No question.

How about focusing on the father? When a girl/woman becomes pregnant, where is he? She didn't become pregnant by herself.



God bless,
Eddie

 

[RealityCheck]

a unique combination of genetic material, you, began life.

Is this what defines life? A unique combination of genetic material?

 

[eddieJ]

The fertlized egg, you, is alive. It's a scientific fact.




God bless,
Eddie

 

[Skaloop]

The fertlized egg, you, is alive. It's a scientific fact.

So is a spermatozoa. So is a bacteria. Being alive is not on its own the qualification for having "value" or for deserving protection.

 

[eddieJ]

Being aborted at the moment of conception means a person, not an egg or sperm, is aborted.




God bless,
Eddie

 

[Skaloop]

Being aborted at the moment of conception means a person, not an egg or sperm, is aborted.

It's a zygote at that point. Not a person.

 

[eddieJ]

You were a zygote once and alive. Do scientific facts bother you? Sperm, eggs, bacteria, none of those are unique human beings.

The beginning of a unique human being, you, happens the moment the sperm fertilizes the egg. That's when everybody begins their life. Doctors have performed surgery in the womb.



God bless,
Eddie

 

[Skaloop]

You were a zygote once and alive. Do scientific facts bother you? Sperm, eggs, bacteria, none of those are unique human beings.

Yes, I was a zygote, and I was alive. I was not, however, a person. Scientific facts do not bother me at all. In fact, I embrace them. Every sperm is a unique collection of human DNA. Just like a zygote. They are not human beings, they are merely human cells.

The beginning of a unique human being, you, happens the moment the sperm fertilizes the egg. That's when everybody begins their life. Doctors have performed surgery in the womb.

Not on a zygote they haven't. A zygote is a single cell.

And in reality, the beginning of a my unique human life happened the moment that a specific sperm and a specific egg were formed and DNA was split via meiosis.

 

[eddieJ]

In-vitro fertilization. When that's successful, what do you get? Not a zygote, a person. It doesn't matter which sperm cell does the fertlizing, but once that happens, it's a person.



God bless,
Eddie

 

[Skaloop]

In-vitro fertilization. When that's successful, what do you get? Not a zygote, a person.

You get a zygote. When a sperm fertilizes an egg, you get a zygote. That's scientific fact. That happens for every sexually reproducing organism, so it's not special to humans.

It doesn't matter which sperm cell does the fertlizing, but once that happens, it's a person.

Every sperm is unique. So it does matter which sperm it was that made me. Any other sperm, and I would not be me. Same for the egg. So what makes me unique is encoded long before conception. Yet we don't worry about killing sperms or eggs.

 

[eddieJ]

So, you admit that you began due to a unique sperm uniting with your mother's egg.


God bless,
Eddie

 

[katautumn]

The beginning of a unique human being, you, happens the moment the sperm fertilizes the egg. That's when everybody begins their life. Doctors have performed surgery in the womb.

You're right, EddieJ. Surgeons have performed medical operations to fetuses in the womb. Most fertilized eggs will never reach the womb. I believe that life begins when you are in an environment where you can grow, be nourished and flourish as a human being. Why are people who are braindead considered dead, merely waiting for all of the external devices keeping their heart beating and lungs filled with oxygen to be removed? Because they are no longer in a physical state where they can continue growth and flourish as a human being. Same thing with a zygote. While the fertilized egg has all of the components to flourish into a human being, it simply cannot if it never implants its self into the woman's uterus...which is the case most of the time. A woman's body naturally flushes out fertilized eggs on a regular basis. These women do not sit around upset over a miscarriage, because (first of all) they were not pregnant to begin with and second, they didn't know there was a fertilized egg inside them. Most zygotes will be rejected by the woman's body for one reason or another.

Being aborted at the moment of conception means a person, not an egg or sperm, is aborted.

You're missing the point entirely. You cannot abort at the moment of conception because you're not even pregnant at the moment of conception. The length of time between fertilization and implantation (when pregnancy scientifically and medically begins) differs for each woman. It can be anywhere between five to ten days after the sperm penetrates the egg before pregnancy will begin. Most of these zygotes will never implant. Saying abortion at the time of conception is the aborting of a person is an erroneous claim, since abortion is the termination of a pregnancy. You cannot have an abortion at the time of conception.

In-vitro fertilization. When that's successful, what do you get? Not a zygote, a person. It doesn't matter which sperm cell does the fertlizing, but once that happens, it's a person.

The crucial difference here is that when you undergo InVitro Fertilization, the eggs are extracted from the woman's body (several at a time), injected with sperm, fertilized and then placed inside the woman's uterus. Under natural circumstances, there would be no guarantee that the zygote would even make it to the woman's uterine lining. Some women can release healthy eggs, they can be met with a healthy sperm, but the fertilized egg never makes it to the uterus, which is why alot of couples turn to IVF because it's almost a sure shot when the fertility doctor places that zygote directly in the woman's uterus.

And here again, we're still focusing on zygotes and whether or not they're people which is absolutely, 110% futile. If the issue is about abortion, then lets focus on women who are pregnant and elect to have a termination, not whether life begins at conception. It's pointless to even discuss fertilized eggs because you cannot abort a zygote.

 

[eddieJ]

You began the moment your mother's egg was fertilized. That is a fact.

If abortion did not involve the death of a unique, living human being, I would not have a problem with it.



God bless,
Eddie