A long time ago, I believed in abortion. I felt it appropriate. More so in cases where women had been raped or were in serious danger of losing their lives. The compassion with which I heard people talk of the subject when I was a teen and young adult led me to believe, albeit tenuously, that abortion was a practical choice.
I ask myself now, as a grown man; how do I cover this topic with sincerity and compassion? I am over a decade removed from that young man that accepted abortion. Now, I am convinced that abortion is morally wrong.
Does this mean that women who have abortions are immoral? No. Abortion as a topic should never be broached with one large sweeping stroke. The emotions and stress that go along with abortion are far-reaching and its necessary to consider how people view the act itself.
Let me start with this. Abortion, however you look at it, requires that a life is ended. Now, regardless of the way we may view what a viable life is. It is, a life. If we can all agree that a plant is a living organism, then we can agree that a fetus is also living.
The mistake is stopping there. When we do not give credit that the fetus is not only alive, but that the fetus is a human and has a life.
Now, before we take any life, for any reason, we must pause to consider the action we are taking. When it comes to abortion, the argument has been divided in two camps. Pro-life and Pro-choice. One side argues on the sanctity of life itself, the other on the right of a woman to choose. The two sides are at odds and cannot seem to engage in civil dialogue.
I have seen the protesters outside of abortion clinics with their, "baby killer" signs. Their blatant oversimplification of the issue baffles me. Not to speak of the lack of compassion for the women that have come to the decision to abort their baby. A decision that cannot come easily.
The self-doubt and self-condemnation are already there for a lot of them. I have met women who have gone through abortion and years later are still trying to cope with it.
Friends, this is not an easy thing.
I have been sparked in particular to talk about abortion when I read an article by Sarah Valliere. An opinion contributor for USA Today.
I take issue with her assumptions that abortion brings about freedom and control. And so that is where I will make my distinctions.
We all have rights to our own bodies. Men and women. A woman has every right to want to be pregnant or not. When your decisions effect the life of someone else, however, then your rights start to get limited. More so when you right to do anything can cost the life of someone else.
Abortion is looked at by its proponents as a safe and legal procedure to end unwanted pregnancies. That may be so (although some would argue that claim). A safe way to avoid getting pregnant is abstinence. Other than that, you have to put your trust in contraceptives.
(Our progressive society is too advanced to practice such old-fashioned and outdated, yet highly effective approaches.)
Now, it has been the experience of us all that man-made products can fail. Contraceptives work most of the time, (99.9%) but when they don't, what happens? (A lot of abortions apparently. It could be that contraceptives aren't that effective. Or people might see abortion as the contraceptive?)
In life, we have said no reset button exist. Although, abortion, could be the exception. The cost to reset your life? You must end one. And Valliere in her article does not even address that fact. How on earth do you have a one-sided conversation about abortion? Simple. If you are pro-life you may judge and excoriate the woman and if pro-choice, you ignore that a third party that can't defend itself is silenced before they can ever speak.
What is the middle ground? Well first of all. It can't be legal action. At least not upfront. Pendulums swings are a fact of life. The minute I push for a law that upholds my point of view another group will lobby to put the law in their favor. Laws need to have a higher standard than that.
The conclusion that Valliere has reached is too dull. She states that she owes her "freedom and medical career to that abortion." The implication would be that women with children are not free and cannot have a medical career. And we all know that is not true. Even Valliere knows that is not true.
But her statement serves her well. The story she has been telling herself since 2005. That abortions equal freedom and control. I wonder if she would say that to her 14-year-old child if she wouldn't have aborted. "You took my freedom and chance at a medical career."
The truth is that some women may actually feel that way. Some women may actually say something similar to their kids. Truth is, some people don't like their kids.
Some people, who remain unhappy with children, believe they should’ve aborted their children. Yes, we can be that cruel.
This raises a lot of questions. For example, should murderers have been aborted? Would society be a better place? But how would we know which ones to abort? There may be some that find it in their interest to research and develop this ability.
And who is to say that Valliere would have had the strength and discipline it would've taken her to become a medical practitioner? She doesn't know that. Now we do know that life becomes increasingly difficult at age 17 to have a baby. Your future can seem bleak and studies show that you probably would not have the success you would want.
But is abortion the answer? Look at it this way. The cost for you to live your life without the added responsibility of a baby is to extinguish said baby. Some people are fine and prefer to live with that decision. They are wrong.
Here are some statements Valliere says. "I'm going home to help give women of Texas the same shot (referring to having freedom and a career) at their own futures." She goes on to say, her physician "withheld from me" the option to abort. And sure enough, it’s possible her physician took issue with abortion and chose to not tell her. Perhaps he forgot.
But once she found out about abortion she says. "it was freeing to learn that abortion was not only an option, but it was my option" Now we all know that at age 17 we can all make some boneheaded decisions. That is why we have a legal age of 18. And even the young adult needs guidance.
We can all understand that a 17-year-old is not entirely mature. And when it comes to life decisions, they need guidance. But somehow Valliere excludes herself from that. She speaks of her 17-year-old self as if she had the wisdom that an additional 14 years has given the author. Valliere does not give herself any wiggle room on that she may have been wrong.
How did she come to the conclusion that abortion at 17 was her option? Well earlier in her article she stated that when the doctor gave her pamphlets on prenatal care and adoption that she knew "neither of these options fits with my life plans." A statement that, 14 years later, I would hope Valliere realizes was premature. Are we really saying that having a family that includes children cannot be part of a plan that involves a career as well?
It also stands true that at 17 your life plans will not always work out how you would want. And Valliere could say "well I have my freedom and the career I thought I would have when I was 17." Some may say something similar with an air of arrogance perhaps. Here is a good question. How did the plans of, "I'll have sex and take contraceptives and not get pregnant" turn out? Well in her own words Valliere would say, "I sat in shock on the toilet seat, staring at all four positive pregnancy tests. How could this be? Taking birth control pills made me invincible; there was no way I could be pregnant."
And that is the problem with Valliere’s way of thinking at 17 and apparently still today. That her feeling invincible and being self-absorbed was more important than anything else. And so, she figured out that if she eliminated the inconvenience than she could live the life she always wanted.
The issue with this kind of thinking (and worse still, planning to propagate it to other women) is that one could live the rest of their lives thinking that any issue that arises can be summarily eliminated. And if we do that with a living human being. Then to what extent are we willing to go?
Now I stated in the beginning of this post that abortion is morally wrong. If I have different morals than Valliere and if morals are subjective then she can help women abort and it should be another day at the office for her. And it should not concern me. But therein lies the problem. Morals are not subjective. Even doctors know that. That's why traditionally they have taken oaths.
I wonder if Valliere took any oaths when she became a family physician. Here are some excerpts of the oath’s doctors take according to the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, Inc. (Emphasis are my own.)
"I will prescribe regimen for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgment and never do harm to anyone. To please no one will I prescribe a deadly drug, nor give advice which may cause his death." - The Oath of Hippocrates of Kos, 5th century BC.
I will maintain the utmost respect for human life from its beginning even under threat and I will not use my medical knowledge contrary to the laws of humanity; I make these promises solemnly, freely and upon my honor. - Declaration of Geneva of the World Medical Association.
To dedicate all my knowledge and strength to the preservation and improvement of the health of mankind and to the treatment and prevention of disease, and to work in good conscience wherever it is required by society - Supreme Soviet of the USSR in 1971 (This from a state that had overseen the murder of 110 million people).
Perhaps, in her practice, Valliere is more likely to profess this oath:
"I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God." - A Modern Hippocratic Oath by Dr. Louis Lasagna
Perhaps the power of taking life is too much. In Valliere's case, there was, it would seem, no life or death to worry about. Her chief concerns were the options that "fit" her "life plans."
Now I am not blaming a 17-year old Valliere because she made a choice to abort her baby. I am not even debating that it should be illegal. That would entail some lengthy civil conversations that we seem incapable to have in a public forum.
What I am taking issue with is the claim of freedom and control that Valliere claims are associated with abortion and her desire to pay it forward. Freedom and control are not inherent to an abortion. A woman who keeps her baby from an unwanted pregnancy is not unfree or out of control.
Also, to look at this issue from a purely scientific point of view does not help. Much literature exist that talks about how abortion is safe. How women cope fine with it all. Other studies show some correlation to emotional traumas. Unfortunately, a good argument cannot be found here for either case. The reason that abortion is wrong is not scientific.
If anything, the fact that proponents of abortion, ask about, when the "person-hood" of a human begins, shows an attempt to justify abortion. This, in my mind, speaks to the realization among the pro-choice camp that their own moral conscience speaks to them and an explanation must be presented.
I have found that when people have a moral high ground, they don't go to factual arguments to prove their point. For example, if a man rapes a woman, the fact that he may have had some mental issue or that his sex drive was an insatiable one does not infer that the act is not wrong and reprehensible.
To argue from facts on a moral issue like abortion means you either missed the point or are ignoring it. Yet Valliere does this in her article multiple times. She has to consistently bring up facts that do not speak to the moral issue itself. Again, here are some phrases she uses.
"Abortion had been legal nationally for 32 years"
"People...needed this safe, legal health care."
"A procedure so safe and quick."
"Legal right to abortion."
"Safe, necessary health care."
The procedure as she put it may be legal, it may be safe, it may be quick. You can even argue that its necessary in extreme cases. (And they are rare.) But these are facts that don't speak about what happens to the human being aborted. They have no legal or human rights. They are not safe when torn to pieces or otherwise expelled from the womb. If they had a voice, they would tell us that it’s not necessary to be so quick to end their lives.
The moral decay is clear in this country and abortion is a clear indicator of the crassness with which we have become so selfish. A long time ago, the decision to not get pregnant was easy. Wait until you get married. You can get upset with that statement all you want. It's true.
You don't get to choose the consequences of your actions. Valliere knew the risks of her behavior at 17. Her choice was wrong.
Here is what I don't understand. We will get up in arms about a man abandoning his family. (A cowardly move I never respect). But a woman ending the life in her womb is labeled choice. We will protect a "Wildflower Site" and prosecute any violators, but we let women take Mifepristone and Buccal Misoprostol to abort their child.
The ASPCA has their slogan, "we are their voice" (talking about animals.) Planned Parenthood, "Care. No matter what." But it’s estimated they have performed between 6 and 7 million abortions. The cost of abortions ranges from $350 - $950. That is an average of $650. Planned Parenthood performed 332,757 abortions in 2017-2018. Do the numbers and it seem they generated some $216,292,050 in abortion services revenue. They do, "Care. No matter what."
I hope by now you have gathered that I'm not arguing for abortion to be illegal. Don't think that I'm saying women do not have a right to choose. I have always encouraged women to be strong and independent. In my life, women have a place of honor and esteem. But I am clear to men and women when they are wrong.
If women want to have an abortion, in America, its legal. I would never stand as a protester in front of an abortion clinic yelling "baby killer" at the top of my lungs. I think that is counter-productive. I'll have to write on that as well.
What I do know is that making something legal does not make it right. And as long as people are making their prerogative to influence and propagate more abortions, I will always call it wrong. And for those that would like to discuss the moral implications of abortion, I am willing to have that conversation.
For women that are considering abortion. It’s wrong. This is not a legal issue for me. It's not a science issue either. The moment you find out you are pregnant and it turns your world around you have a moral obligation to put the life of the child first.
For as long as I can remember, and for much longer than that, in emergency situations, it has always been, women and children first. The reason is clear for that. Women are the back-bone of the home while men lead, provide and protect. Women can lead, they can provide, and they can protect. Do not miss the point.
Women are what hold a family unit together. When, all hell is breaking loose, when crisis hit. When men reach a breaking point and children are unable to fend for themselves. Women, through sheer determination do not allow the home to crumble. Your wisdom is needed. Your love is needed. This is true for the men and children in your lives now. And also true for the unborn child. The old Proverb says:
"The wisest of women builds her house, but folly with her own hands tears it down."
It has never been truer than with the tragic reality of abortion. Hope remains, that one day, children will abound. And that the darkness of abortion will be no more.
Comments