Abortion

I would like to preface this post with a little bit of my history and my personal choices in this matter. With my ex-wife I have been through three miscarriages. Which I would not wish upon my worst enemy. They were terribly heartbreaking and a very difficult time in my life. I have never considered for a second aborting any of the pregnancies I was involved in. Unless approached by the mother I would never consider abortion as an option, and even then I doubt I would be in favor. 

To make sure I am talking about the same thing everyone thinks I'm talking about. Here is the dictionary definition of abortion as provided by google.com.

"The deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed during the first 28 weeks of pregnancy."

 I would also like to point out that google also list synonyms as termination or miscarriage. Termination in this case makes perfect sense, but why is miscarriage listed? Here is what google gives as the definition for miscarriage.

"The expulsion of a fetus from the womb before it is able to survive independently, especially spontaneously or as the result of accident."

Everyone understands (Or at least should) how children are conceived and how they are expelled from a female body. With the combination of these facts and the definitions it seems perfectly logical that abortion and miscarriage are synonyms. When a pregnancy is terminated it then has to be expelled from the womb. The only real difference between what is commonly considered a miscarriage and an abortion is that one is intentional and the other is not. That is not an opinion that is simply a fact.

Looking back at the definition of abortion we see that they are most often performed before 28 weeks. As of 2013 there are 24 states that limited abortions to 28 weeks or earlier. An interesting and relevant statistic is that at 28 weeks a premature birth with much medical care the survival rate is about 95% as of 2015. This may explain why most abortions take place before 28 weeks.

Pregnancy is life altering. The idea of being responsible a child for at least 18 years can be overwhelming. However, It also comes with a large list of health risk. Here is the short list anemia, depression, gestational diabetes, high blood pressure, hyperemesis gravidarum (morning sickness like symptoms that do not go away), compromised immune system which leads to all kinds of infections with limited treatments, and worst case scenario death.

Here is the sort list of health risk of an abortion. Allergic reaction, blood clots, failure to end the pregnancy, infection, injury to the cervix or other organs, very heavy bleeding, severe pain, nausea, depression, and once again the worse case being death.

Let's have a thought experiment here. You have a medical condition that would have you puking every morning (sometimes all day), compromises your immune system, give you high blood pressure, depression, anemia, diabetes, and possibly kill you. After 7-10 months you get to have a very painful medical procedure done and you will be cured but will have to be absolutely diligent to monitor your condition for the next 18 years or more. Or you could have a very painful medical procedure done immediately with less risk but somewhat similar to the effects of the condition in the first place including death. However, you would be cured immediately with no monitoring. Which would you choose?

Once you take the idea of a child out of the equation it's much simpler to make that decision. However, there is the possibility of a child. Therefore, many other things come into play such as cultural norms, religion, morality, and even the wish to have a child. Should all of these things be taken into account when considering an abortion? Simply put, yes. Everything about you, the circumstances of the pregnancy, where you live, and even your support systems should be considered. Not just for you but also the child that would be the result.

Many people and religious organizations consider an embryo or fetus to be a child already. Rather you agree with them or not. Let's look at abortion from that perspective for a moment. A woman deciding to give birth (from this viewpoint) is essentially letting another human being survive by using their body for 7-10 months. This other person would die without the woman support. Should she be allowed to terminate this situation if she no longer wants that to be the case? This is a question I find fascinating.

Another thought experiment should help us here. Let's say someone needs a constant blood transfusion to survive for the next 7-10 months, and you are the only person that is a match. Even if you agree to it initially, does that mean you can't change your mind 5 months in? Is there any kind of law that would force you to continue with this transfusion? Would you me morally obligated to continue? Once again, taking the possibility of a child out of the question makes it more clear, and less emotional.

Part of that second thought experiment is the idea of consent. I have heard many times that consenting to sex is consenting pregnancy and to give birth. I think this is an absurd idea. I have consented to sex way more often than I could even start to count. However, I have never once consented to getting pregnant or giving birth. Then again, I'm male so it's not a possibility. However, this is my point. Why should women be consenting to more than I am when they consent to sex? That's like saying I consent to shaking your hand, thus I consent to getting every single bacterial and viral infection you have ever had. However, your consent to shake my hand is only to shake my hand. Does that seem fair?

What if the woman didn't consent? Sure it would be rape and rape is bad. Everyone knows this. However, the woman could still get pregnant. Should she then be forced to carry and deliver the child of the rapist? What if there is definitely something physically or mentally wrong with the child and it would not live more than a few days? Even worse would be if the child would life a long life but be in constant pain for it's entire life. Should the woman then be forced to give birth to this child? Would it be fair to the child? What if the mother was addicted to drugs and the child would be born deformed and addicted itself? So many questions and so many possibilities.

It seems that every discussion of this subject talks about the choice of the woman and rightfully so. The woman is the one with the most at risk and therefore should have the most say in the matter. However, I think there is reason for the man to at least have a say. Rather he is for abortion or against doesn't matter. At the very least the man would be financially responsible for the child for 18 years if the woman chooses to continue with the pregnancy. There is also the possibility the woman would choose to have an abortion while the man is against it. I'm not saying the man should have all the say. I'm simply saying he should at least be heard.

All of this can really be summed up rather easily. No matter if someone decided to have an abortion or not. They should at least have the choice. It's really simple, if you don't agree with abortion, don't get one. However, that does not give you any right (moral or legal) to push your choice onto others. The old moral adage applies here, the right to swing your arms ends where another's nose begins.

This is a interesting topic with a lot of debate in politics, religion, and other social constructs. While I try to always come to my conclusions based on facts, logic, and not simple emotional reactions I am only human and sometimes I get things wrong. However, I don't think this is one of those cases. Then again, I'm just a guy named Rug, but that is what I think.