Abortion. Yeah, I know, it’s a whole can of worms that I’m not sure I want to open up, but after having read a story on the rights of the fetus, I have to say something. Now the whole article was on making it a charge of murder if someone harms an unborn child, unless it’s abortion. As strange as it may seem, the pro-choice people are all up in arms about this, saying that it’s limiting the rights of women to have an abortion. Right away, I don’t get this, as the laws they were specifically talking about state unless it’s abortion. So how does this infringe on a woman’s right to have an abortion?
I don’t want to talk so much about that; instead, I want to talk about the whole idea of abortion. Personally, I would never ever recommend an abortion. If I ever got a woman pregnant, I would not ever suggest aborting it. However, my views do not represent personal preference. I will not ever recommend imposing my will or my personal preferences on the general public. My personal preference notwithstanding, I don’t have a problem with a woman having an abortion, especially if it’s the case of rape or incest. No one should be forced to bear a child they don’t want to have. That to me is the ultimate insult. But that’s where I start to disagree with the pro-choice people. Their view is that abortion should be unconditional; that any woman, from puberty to menopause, should have that right. I disagree, and here’s how I see it. First, any girl under the age of 18 should be bound by the parents. It’s that simple. A lot of people I know, even in their 20s, don’t really have a mind of their own, and to expect a teenager to truly understand the ramifications of something like either abortion or an unplanned pregnancy is sheer lunacy, in my estimation. Beyond that, again, barring rape or incest, I believe it should be a joint decision. In other words, there was a man involved in order to make this happen, and his rights should be respected equally as well.
Bear in mind, I’m talking in terms of two people who have sex but are not married. Being married changes the parameters again, and I’ll probably touch upon that as well, but this is speaking strictly in terms of a non-married couple. The way it should work is this: if the man wants it and the woman doesn’t, the man should bear the entire cost of the pregnancy and of raising the child. If the woman wants it and the man doesn’t, the man bears no responsibility, other than partial financial support for the pregnancy. Seem unfair? I don’t think so. Think about it. If the man wants the child, then he has to pay the price. I could imagine going as far as paying some sort of compensation to the woman for her carrying his child. I don’t know how this would work in the laws, but I’m sure there is a way to work it out. By the same token, if it’s the other way around and the woman wants the child, then she has effectively absolved the man of any responsibility. The only time I can see there being a real need for an abortion is when neither wants the child, or the aforementioned rape or incest.
For a couple that is married, it should be a joint decision. Unless they both agree to have an abortion, then it shouldn’t happen. I can just hear the pro-choice people warming up now, so let me qualify this whole plan a little. The way I see it, unless it was rape or incest, the woman did make a conscious decision to do the thing which got her pregnant. Further, she chose not be on the pill, and not to use a diaphragm and not to make her partner wear a condom, not to have her tubes tied or the man to have a vasectomy. These are all choices that have been made prior to getting pregnant.
Given that, why should someone be given yet another bite of the apple, so to speak? I know what you’re going to say, that most of those things can fail. This is true, but add them all up and they still add up to a lot of choices having been made prior to getting pregnant. After all, with my plan, if a woman does do some of these things and still gets pregnant, it’s obvious that she didn’t want it. Most likely her partner didn’t, either. Then there shouldn’t be a problem, right? I’m sure you all will come up with some sort of problem.
Then there’s the whole issue of the government providing abortion on demand. To put it simply, I don’t want my tax dollars being spent on things like that. Given the above parameters, unless the government is willing to follow those guidelines, then it has no business being involved in it at all.
Now, I’ve been put to task by our editor in chief over the question of using medical technology. Specifically, it’s now possible to screen for various disabilities during a pregnancy. Given that, it then becomes a question of to abort or not to abort, when facing the prospect of a child with a disability. To be perfectly honest, I have mixed opinions about this. First off, if it is a mild disability, and that too is in the eye of the beholder, then you’re talking about aborting just simply because you don’t want to deal with it. I don’t think that’s right. Now, if you’re talking a more serious disability, and more importantly one where the child might die in a few years anyway, then I simply don’t have an answer. On the one hand, I’d say a life is a life and there shouldn’t be an abortion, but on the other, the simple truth is that it would be very costly to raise a child that you know is going to die anyway. But then it swings back the other direction, what if it doesn’t? What if it beats the odds? Personally, considering I have a birth defect, I’d say under no circumstances should someone abort just because of a disability, but that is too inflexible and I can certainly see some instances where it may be necessary.
To sum it up simply, carte blanche abortion on demand detracts from a person’s responsibilities. I am in favor of bringing back some sort of personal responsibility.