Note:I started this piece thinking I'd tackle several topics in one post and decided halfway through my first issue that I should probably make this a series of posts. So here's the first one.
I can be very vocal about my views which can sometimes be my very own undoing. Though I learn from them and keep on putting out my thoughts on certain issues. I would like to share how my views have evolved through time. The college version of myself and the person I am today would argue more than hang out probably. Between college and today, I did decide to evaluate my beliefs and I continue to re-evaluate them whenever I can.
Back when Nikki and I started dating, I had a realization. I became very concerned with truth. The reason for this was simple. I could see myself marrying this woman and if we were to start a family, I knew I had to make sure I get the values right. And so I questioned everything and I would follow the arguments wherever they lead even if I didn't like them.
One of the things that changed from 10 years ago is my stand on abortion. I would personally always try to convince people that it was wrong but I didn't see any danger in making it legal and available as a choice for those who wanted it. I always made reservations for cases like rape, incest, or cases where the mother's life is in danger. I also could sympathize to women who are financially incapable to bring a child into the world but I drew the line at the 1st trimester. After that point, you must've made up your mind to either keep the child or abort it.
So I had a few conditions which made me think abortion could be fine.
- Rape
- Incest
- Mother's life is in danger
- For whatever reason as long as it's within the first trimester
Most people who are unaware of the issue will nod their heads and say these are reasonable conditions - a reasonable compromise between the pro-life and the pro-choice sides of the debate. If you would ask me back then, I'd say I was pro-life for sure.
The Catholic Church's position did not allow for any exceptions. I thought this was very radical and unwelcoming to women. So I started asking the question of why the Church would think this.
Every single science book will say that a new human life starts at conception. This isn't one of the things under contention. Pro-choicers who say it's a clump of cells or just a part of a woman or a parasite are deluding themselves. The most defensible argument the pro-choice side will say, however, is "Does this human being have rights?"
 |
| Human being at 8 weeks |
Birth is simply the change in location. Viability is not something you can test before an abortion. Between the first and second trimester, the child simply grows a bit larger in size. Implantation is also a change in location. But before the point of conception, there was no child - only sperm and egg. Both human but not a complete human being. After conception, however, it goes from no life to something living. Again, I refer back to any science textbook.
The reason why I'm very iffy about allowing arbitrary traits like, level of development, location and viability is because this is exactly how things like genocide and slavery start out. Arbitrary things like, skin color, race, or religion were once used to justify genocide and slavery. So why should we allow things like, what their father did (in cases of rape and incest), or stage of development (1st trimester only) determine the person-hood of a child.
Let's face facts, abortion doesn't stop the rape. It doesn't stop the incest. The only thing it does, is allow the mother to be complicit in her own child's death. I personally don't want any woman to go through an abortion and then realize later that she was in fact involved in the death of her child.
The only remaining possible exemption would be in the case of the mother's life being in danger. This was the last one that I let go as I truly believed it. The simplest way to look at the issue would be to see two people who are in danger of dying - the mother and the child. In cases like this, we try to save whoever we can.
A parallel situation would be this moral dilemma. Two people are drowning in the sea and you can only save. In an ideal situation, you would save one, get them to safety, and then try to go back for the other. This is what we should do. What abortion proposes, however, is that we drown one of the people to make sure we don't have to go back to them when we save the one we chose.
I'm no medical expert but you can do a quick google search on former abortionist, Dr. Anthony Levatino. Since becoming pro-life in the 1980s, he has not once needed to perform an abortion to save the mother's life even in extreme cases of cancer, rampant toxemia, diabetes and other dangerous cases. And his method is very simple. He simply delivers the baby. He does admit that not all babies make it out alive but every single one at the very least had a chance of surviving.
He treats the case as two patients - the child and the mother and he tries to save both. Now, if the child doesn't live, it's sad for sure but it was an unintended ill effect and not the end in and of itself. It's the case of trying to go back to save the other drowning person only to find they've already drowned. What he usually does in these extreme cases is very simple. He terminates their pregnancy ... by delivering the baby, even when the baby is normally not able to survive outside the womb.
People have retorted to me that it doesn't sound any different than abortion. But here's the main difference. If abortion is the path being chosen and for some reason, the child lives, it would be considered a failed abortion. However, if the baby is delivered to save the mother's life and for some reason the baby survives, it would be met with celebration and would be called a miracle.
The main difference is that it dignifies human life throughout all stages of development - from conception to natural death.
One of the other objections the pro-choice side will throw out is that making abortion illegal won't stop abortion, it will stop safe abortions. This objection is usually accompanied by the idea of coat hanger abortions or women throwing themselves off staircases. The most gruesome form of back alley abortion I've heard about is where a woman gets a "massage" and the masseuse presses on the belly hard enough to induce the abortion. (As I'm writing this, I'm literally getting chills).
US statistics show that the women who undergo abortion have a lower risk of death than most other medical procedures. I can't remember the figure off the bat but it was less than one tenth of a percent. At first glance, the numbers seem promising. However, you soon realize all successful abortions always end in the death of a child and you can easily change up the statistic. In all abortions, 50% of the people who go into the operating room (when you count the mother and the child), don't come out alive. Add that to the fact the before most abortions, both mother and child are perfectly healthy (~92% of abortions are done not because of health problems or rape/incest. See: https://abort73.com/abortion_facts/us_abortion_statistics/).
If you want to defend safe abortion, know that it's an oxymoron. Unless abortionists can make abortion as safe for the child as it is for the mother, we cannot even fathom the idea of a "safe abortion".
The last one, which I also hear is that making abortion illegal will not stop it. This idea totally misses the point. Murders, theft, terrorism, slavery, and rape are illegal but the law does not stop things from happening. The law, when enforced, punishes these acts when they're done. We shouldn't allow society to let evil things happen just so people have the choice to do them. We don't allow people to rape women without repercussions. We don't allow people to own other people without repercussions.
We're lucky we don't allow abortion here in the Philippines though I foresee in the next few years, this issue will rear its ugly head in our local scene again. We have to be prepared. Let's not forget that abortion is not a woman's rights issue as the politicians would claim. It's a human rights issue.
People have retorted to me that it doesn't sound any different than abortion. But here's the main difference. If abortion is the path being chosen and for some reason, the child lives, it would be considered a failed abortion. However, if the baby is delivered to save the mother's life and for some reason the baby survives, it would be met with celebration and would be called a miracle.
The main difference is that it dignifies human life throughout all stages of development - from conception to natural death.
One of the other objections the pro-choice side will throw out is that making abortion illegal won't stop abortion, it will stop safe abortions. This objection is usually accompanied by the idea of coat hanger abortions or women throwing themselves off staircases. The most gruesome form of back alley abortion I've heard about is where a woman gets a "massage" and the masseuse presses on the belly hard enough to induce the abortion. (As I'm writing this, I'm literally getting chills).
US statistics show that the women who undergo abortion have a lower risk of death than most other medical procedures. I can't remember the figure off the bat but it was less than one tenth of a percent. At first glance, the numbers seem promising. However, you soon realize all successful abortions always end in the death of a child and you can easily change up the statistic. In all abortions, 50% of the people who go into the operating room (when you count the mother and the child), don't come out alive. Add that to the fact the before most abortions, both mother and child are perfectly healthy (~92% of abortions are done not because of health problems or rape/incest. See: https://abort73.com/abortion_facts/us_abortion_statistics/).
If you want to defend safe abortion, know that it's an oxymoron. Unless abortionists can make abortion as safe for the child as it is for the mother, we cannot even fathom the idea of a "safe abortion".
The last one, which I also hear is that making abortion illegal will not stop it. This idea totally misses the point. Murders, theft, terrorism, slavery, and rape are illegal but the law does not stop things from happening. The law, when enforced, punishes these acts when they're done. We shouldn't allow society to let evil things happen just so people have the choice to do them. We don't allow people to rape women without repercussions. We don't allow people to own other people without repercussions.
We're lucky we don't allow abortion here in the Philippines though I foresee in the next few years, this issue will rear its ugly head in our local scene again. We have to be prepared. Let's not forget that abortion is not a woman's rights issue as the politicians would claim. It's a human rights issue.
The moral dilemma...
ReplyDeleteSo to whose responsibility of raising an unwanted child fall?
If only all the world's orphanages and institutions would be so willing to carry that responsibility. If only there was an option to rear an unwanted child all expense paid for all women who have given birth to them but can't afford them because their husbands- I'm sorry not all of them have husbands, or co-creators have left.
Again, the illusion of pro-choice vs pro-life continues to elude your enlightenment.
With the world we have today, it is clear that neither side can sustain the change that demands of the times. For me it is important, like in our conversation before, for people to achieve synthesis and to find a way to co-exist. Live in harmony with the acknowledgement that there are people who clamor for a safe way to address their needs.
The social contract afforded by a properly researched and supported law is the only remedy to the ills of those who need it. Neither you or me have the right to dictate how women choose to carry their lives. Surely the both of us would never resort to it, but it appears you do not respect the choice nor the life of the person whose lives do not necessarily directly matter to us right now (if you miscontrue this, I am honest in that should anyone from my immediate circle were to have an abortion, I would help them change their minds but I cannot commit to raising a child that they wouldn't raise themselves).
Perhaps you've never experienced to work with the orphanages, the birthing centers, and the marginalized people aching for a change that cannot happen instantly...
Perhaps you have not gone through the suffering prevalent in our society built on lofty double standards, or you have yet to experience them for yourself...
Though we have sweet summers, we too drown in tempests...
Thank you for writing your piece though it shows the disparity of your experience in the field, I understand your point of view. Like you've said previously, you will change perspectives, that is the rule of the world. And it's alright. At least, you were afforded that simple choice to be able to change perspective on a life that is ever changing.
Thanks for your comment, Paulo. We've been through a lot of discussions though we haven't brought up something else. I'll try to write about it more in depth so as to get at the root of the issue.
DeleteThe thing is, with most abortions (~98%) they involve a pregnancy that came about through consensual means. I.e., the woman did something that caused another human to rely on her. It cannot be separated no matter what kind of birth control we try to use.
It's not as if women simply become pregnant without cause. If you factor that in, it shouldn't fall on the state or orphanages or anyone else to bring up the child. The parents should. It takes two to tango and this case is no different.