WORDS: 2,314 — If you look at that post image there think of this one thing… where in any of those three institutions (yeah, the clown has turned himself into a post-presidency institution.. for now).. where in those do you think will have the solution to the abortion debate? If you selected even one, I am calling you wrong. Like I “suggested” in Part 1 of this two-parter post, there will be no complete solution to end ALL abortion, but we certainly can reduce them by simply listening to the reasons women are wrestling with, and society developing a process by which our moral compassion can come through to not only save the unborn but also save a few mothers along the way.
So… To Stop Abortions Without Threats Of Imprisonment For All Parties, Exactly What Do We Do?
First bit of reasoning… no matter what anyone does, whether they pass laws to toss the “criminals” who choose abortion and/or perform abortions into jail, or continue along with the legal interpretations of Roe V. Wade, you will never stop all abortions. With the advent of the pill now available… and it being the actual process for most abortions these days, even if you make it a controlled substance… there will still be a black market.. and likely an illegal international trade. If a woman gets a positive reading from her home pregnancy test she can take a pill to abort, and no one is the wiser. Making laws will simply drive it all underground without any possibility for counseling or other interventions. Perhaps the greater reasoning is that abortions can never be eliminated given they can occur without any record. Maybe we simply let our instinctive natural guilt continue to moderate decisions to abort.
In fact, if Roe is discontinued and left to the states it will just feed the political divide (if that could even go any further). I heard a couple days ago that there’s a county or two in Michigan where the county prosecutors will not even charge/indict violations of abortion laws. I’m sure that sentiment will spread across the land as well. I don’t happen to agree that government prosecutors defy the law in that manner, but the point here is that the debate is incendiary enough to get elected officials or law enforcement people to intentionally defy enforcing legitimately created legislation. One should object with their vote, not sabotage the Constitution or the democratic process, no matter how ill-conceived or repugnant a law is, or elected official performs. That’s a sure-fire way of whittling away the spirit of democracy. The concept is similar to treatment of the American flag. Few things impassion anger more in Americans than the flag being defiled in some way in protest, knowing what the flag represents to us. But the greater representation is our freedom of speech is maintained for people to demonstrate their opinions in that way, and not make a law prohibiting the flag being used in an improper way. It’s our passion for liberty to keep it from being defiled… not the passage of a law. We are going to have crap laws and crap people will be elected to public office. But that’s part of democracy.
If the goal is to reduce abortions and not just about deterring abortions by sending people to jail for deciding on them or performing them, then the focus should be on the actual reasons themselves that women may want to have one. From there we might be able to build/enhance existing government programs to allow pregnant women a greater set of alternative outcomes and possible opportunities in order to feel better in order to carry their pregnancy forward and engage in parenting after delivery. Of course that would never be a 100% prescription for each woman… but perhaps as a society we need to consider if the investment to carry a child to term is greater than losing the child and risking a mental struggle within the woman that may affect her quality of life. Filling up prisons seldom deters anything.
Yet Unwanted Children Can Always Be Placed In Adoption… Right?
Since I am adopted I can write a post on this alone. Maybe even a book. I was extraordinarily fortunate in getting the adopted parents I had. My sister was adopted as well… although she was from different parents than myself. We were not bio-siblings. Point being… sis and I were very fortunate, and we were NOT adopted into wealth or advantage of position. Pure middle class folks when both parents just turned 30. Now, were we an exception or did we fit a general rule of successful adoption? Well… sis and I certainly had NO misgivings in knowing we were undeniably wanted. Of course kids with natural parents are wanted in general… but given a lot of pregnancies “happen” and hence become accepted as matters of fact (a “welcome” surprise, as commonly stated)… there was no doubt our parents wanted us cause they had to go through the process of wanting kids at the time they wanted us. Not every adoption is a success story. I’ve heard of some pretty bad ones. Much like some couples who have kids of their own.. and probably shouldn’t have. But by and large adoption is a good thing. In fact, it’s a very good thing.. But is it an all-encompassing reason to abort the idea of having an abortion?
What we don’t see are any stats on are how many people considered abortion and ended up changing their minds, carrying their child to term, and then giving it up for adoption. My birth mother did just that, although very likely she was influenced by the illegality of the process in Illinois back in Pre-Roe v. Wade 1951 and any illegal options in the back alley. But she was convinced by others that carrying me to term for adoption was a good thing (I ended up meeting my bio-siblings when in my 40’s and that was told to them when they met our mother.. who had since passed away before our meeting). But as we know not all women will readily make a choice to carry their child to adoption. Some may even carry their child with the intent to present for adoption only to change their mind when the baby is born. There are all kinds of reasonings.. and I’m afraid not much solid data how they might rank.
But there is something to be said for not opting to put your unborn child up for adoption. Many times it’s a feeling that their child will go though life hating their birth mother for ‘giving them up”. Other’s might not wish to feel they abandoned their child. Maybe the mother fears the child will look them up later in life out of some anger… or some stranger will just show up at the door 20 years from now to remind them of their guilt There’s also the idea that carrying your child and giving them to adoption is that there’s a living part of you wandering the world. In fact, I recall my youngest son years ago, late teens and technically of age to make his decisions, came to his mother and myself regarding his considering donating to a sperm bank to make some “quick bucks”. While I expressed the basic positive concept of a sperm bank to certain members of society in their desire to have children a certain way… I also presented to him the idea he would have to live with the possibility that would exist in the future that someone carrying his genes… his genetic makeup… someone very likely with similar looks and appearance, might exist in the world, without his influence. He wrestled with that for a while.. then decided against it. There’s no real right or wrong to it… but more a matter of individual perception of some level of parental responsibility as to how you create offspring. Strangely, considering an abortion does not necessarily mean you are selfish in your life enough to “kill a fetus”, but rather “I am unable to think I could handle the responsibility for parenting my own offspring and I certainly don’t wish to “dump” that responsibility for my genetic offspring onto someone else.” Seems a responsible consideration, at least up front.
Also consider, even nine months of pregnancy, even if to give the child up for adoption, can certainly curtail, or in the least delay, whatever your short term life plans are. “Is it worth terminating your pregnancy over?” is of course the essence of the decision to be made… at least under the present SCOTUS interpretation. If that Court decision is reversed then there is no question to ask yourself… but rather “Too bad, so sad. You should have thought of that before you.. ‘indulged’. Welcome to parenthood, and good luck. Oh, by the way, if you don’t want your kid after its born then put it up for adoption. Good luck. Have a nice day.” I ask you, did the mother or the unborn “win” anything there or are YOU simply relieved that you asserted… nay, imposed… your moral obligation and now you can sleep nights? Here, let me hand you a towel to dry off those hands. There are two “victims” in an abortion. Nature has determined that the mother “speaks” for both, but not without considerable instinctual influence toward the mother. One might even assign that Nature speaks for the unborn.
What I am suggesting is more along the lines of, “What assistance can be offered to you in order for you to meet your concerns and nurture your child responsibly?” The question then becomes one for society… what’s the price of helping a reluctant mother-to-be to give birth rather than to abort? Cheaper for society to remove a contributor to the economy and paying for their jail time? Again, nothing can guarantee ALL abortions will stop. If one abortion is too many then how many less would make a difference?
Some Pro-Life Supporters Suggest Exceptions For Rape And Incest
I am not sure where that’s even coming from, quite honestly. On the surface it at least looks like an attempt to placate some kind of legislative compromise with Pro-Choice supporters. Here’s the point… if the entire debate is all about protecting an unborn fetus to birth, then seems to me there can be no exceptions. Oh, sure.. rape and incest are crimes of and by themselves but I am not sure how a pregnancy as a result of those crimes should escape the moral outrage of aborting a fetus. If one is a religious person then a life is a life and how that life became to exist can easily be suggested as “Divine Intervention” to allow the act, in spite of any prayers of the victims in the moment the act was being committed. Who are we to judge a “permitted” abortion? Now… if you are a typical person of moral motivation and simply find abortion an appalling act to kill another human being you might allow for exceptions to the rule for rape and incest, and it seems logical.
The following is from a CNN interview with Nebraska Governor Pete Ricketts where the Governor is reporting on the intent and progress of creating anti-abortion legislation in his state…
“Nebraska is a pro-life state. I believe life begins at conception, and those are babies too,” Ricketts told CNN’s Dana Bash on “State of the Union” when asked if he thought the state should require a young girl who was raped to carry the pregnancy to term. “If Roe v. Wade, which is a horrible constitutional decision, gets overturned by the Supreme Court, which we’re hopeful of, here in Nebraska, we’re going to take further steps to protect those preborn babies.”
“Including in the case of rape or incest?” Bash asked. To which the governor replied: “They’re still babies, too. Yes.”
To me that makes sense IF one holds to the idea that a fetus is a fetus regardless how it was created. BUT… if we approach the problem as I suggest here, it’s possible there could be a social program to assist a female victim of rape and/or incest to work through the decision process of aborting or not. Again, the strength of such programs MUST NOT simply be echoes of religious ideology to instill guilt.
Let’s Recap My… Suggestion…
First, compile the data regarding reasons a mother may want an abortion. Select the top three… heck, select only the first one on that list. Get feedback and input from the psych and medical communities on how to develop some kind of assistance policy. Then give it to the lawyers, then give it to the politicians to examine the necessary policy needs. Then implement in areas of the country as test regions. In fact, results might even be reflected inside of a year. But here’s the key… this is far more than just introducing some kind of counseling therapy illustrating why a mother wouldn’t want to do this. This should be all about, what would it take for the mother to not decide on abortion as a path forward. We could be talking broad ranging social programs here. Why would a mother-to-be considering an abortion want to enter the program? It has to be non-judgmental, no impositions of guilt, and a mother just might want to enter the program.
For sure I am missing many considerations. But the point is, society would be truly trying to reduce abortions through treating the mother’s welfare as much as the unborn child. In the meantime, The nation doesn’t have to takes sides on political and legal remedies, and SCOTUS does not have to consider Constitutionality of fetus development and rights or choice regarding the act itself.
If you didn’t get to read Part 1 then go…. HERE.