Date Written: 07-09-2003
Updates: 08-10-03, 08-16-03, 08-23-03, 09-05-03
Revisions: 08-22-03

Abortion & Responsibility - A Pro-Life Perspective

Introduction

There is much debate over abortion in the United States. There are those that believe a woman has the freedom to choose if she wishes to carry to term a pregnancy, and those that feel it is destroying a life by aborting a pregnancy. This debate has become so intense in recent years that in some instances it has been brought to violent actions. According to recent surveys (e.g., Gallup Polls, News Media Polls) the American public generally supports the Pro-Choice viewpoint. However, the statistics vary greatly based upon the way questions in the polls were phrased. On the political spectrum, the Pro-Choice viewpoint is largely favored by the democratic left and opposed by the republican right.

Each side has its reasons for their position. I however find that the Pro-Choice camp does not really provide much reasoning behind their stand point. It appears that the Pro-Choice standpoint consists in its entirety on the belief that a woman has a right to make decisions pertaining to her own body, and no one else has that right but her. A question must be asked at this point, this question being why would a woman want to have an abortion? There are numerous reasons why a woman may not want to have a child, these can include, but are not limited to any of the following, teenagers ill prepared for child raising, career orientated women, and women not feeling they are in the right point in their lives or with the right partner for a having a child. I will agree that these and almost any other reason a woman can give for not wanting a child falls under her right as an individual to decide whether she is or is not prepared to raise a child. However, there is a process that must first run its course before a woman reaches the stage that we know as pregnancy.

When Life Begins

It is my belief that "human" life begins at conception. Conception defined in the form of when the fertilized egg implants in the lining of the uterus. [1] At this point the process of development begins. A person does not begin life when they are born, but rather when they are conceived. Without development in the womb, a fetus would never come to term. To believe that ending a life prior to birth or after birth (infant, child, adolescence and beyond) is anything other than the death of an individual is outrageous.

From conception to fetus, to birth, to childhood, to teenage years, to adult, elderly and finally death, life is a developmental process from conception to death. Science supports that life is created at conception. [2] Human DNA exists in a fertilized egg, and once conception begins, there is a significant possibility that it will develop into a "recognizable human." I say recognizable due to the inability of certain individuals to acknowledge the existence of a human life when it does not yet resemble a fully or almost fully formed baby. The development from conception to birth is no different from birth to death as a life form, regardless of species develops through numerous stages throughout its lifetime until death occurs.

Responsibility

A woman must first have sexual intercourse before she can be pregnant. Having sexual intercourse is a decision that requires a degree of responsibility and of understanding potential consequences. If a person is not prepared to have a child, they should not have sexual intercourse. By engaging in sexual intercourse, they acknowledge, whether they wish to concisely consider it or not, that as a result in engaging in sexual intercourse, she can become pregnant. After such a decision is made, responsibility does not end there. A woman is responsible for her own body; there is no excuse for a female not to be on birth control, and/or to allow a male to penetrate her without wearing a condom or exercise the use of other birth control methods.

While birth control methods are not fully effective, it is the responsibility of the user of such methods to be fully informed on the products they are using and acknowledge the potential risk of becoming pregnant. Those who engage in sexual behavior, regardless of birth control and protective measures they have used, are fully responsible for their own behavior, and the consequences that may result from their behavior.

The tragic aspect of abortion is that these women who are irresponsible prior to the conception of a new life, choose then to further their irresponsible actions by claiming they have a right to end said such life because they do not wish to have a child, their reasons at this point are irrelevant. These women first choose not to be responsible for their own actions while engaging in sexual intercourse, and then choose to not accept the consequences of their actions or the responsibility of those actions by taking the life of another.

A woman that claims that she is pro-choice is merely a woman that chooses to be irresponsible with her own body and then furthers her irresponsibility by reserving the right to terminate her pregnancy if she becomes pregnant. No person has the right to take the life of another who has not threatened that person in any form. A threat to ones future and way of life by an unborn child was not perpetrated by that child, but rather by the irresponsibility of the person who is pregnant.

There can be very instances in which a woman is not responsible for her own pregnancy. But, regardless if a woman was in the unfortunate circumstance to be raped or was a victim of incest, that woman has no right to take the life of another. The tragic events of one person's life should not give that person the right to take a life. The only instance in which a pregnancy should be terminated would be if there was a direct and significant threat to the health of the pregnant woman. If the life of the woman carrying the pregnancy is in such grave and immediate danger, then I do believe that the life of one currently living supercedes that of one who has not yet been born.

It is a shame that in the society of today, such a great number of individuals refuse to accept responsibility for their own actions, but rather feel that it is never their responsibility and never "their fault." Each and every individual is responsible for their own actions. There are no exceptions.

The "Morning After Pill" and "Early Abortion Pill"

Plan-B and Preven are the actual names of the "Morning after Pill." They are widely used in the advent of unprotected sex, and new studies show that these pills work up to five days after sexual intercourse has taken place. These pills "do not interrupt established pregnancies. They are believed to work by preventing either ovulation or implantation of the embryo." [3] This is not considered abortion, as well as general contraceptive use does not equate to abortion. The Morning after Pill works by increasing "doses of certain hormones or by inserting a copper intrauterine device (IUD) within five to seven days after sex. The IUD is not a method of abortion because it acts by preventing the fertilized egg from implanting in the lining of the uterus, which is required for a successful pregnancy." [4] However, the "Early Abortion Pill" does.

RU-486, which is better known as the "Early Abortion Pill" is effective "up to 49 days after the beginning of the last menstrual period." [5] "Two days after taking RU-486, the woman takes two tablets of another drug called misoprostol, which causes the lining of the uterus to be expelled along with the embryo" [6] This is abortion.

The Other Pregnancies: Rape, Incest, Genetic Defects, and the Life Threatening

It is a tragedy when a woman is raped, or when a young woman is a victim of an act of incest perpetrated by a family member. But as stated above, I do not believe that a woman has the right to further the horrendous act she herself was a victim of, by murdering another.

In those cases in which the life of the bearer of the pregnancy is threatened, I believe that as stated above, the life of the woman living supercedes the life of the one not yet born. Do not mistake the previous statement, I believe that both the unborn child and the woman carrying the pregnancy are both alive, and I value those lives equally. However, if the woman carrying the pregnancy is conscience and is able to make decisions, I believe it is her right to be able to choose her own right to live. I do not believe that the woman should be forced to sacrifice her own life for that of another unless she so chooses so by her own free will. If the woman is in such a state in which she is unable to make such a decision, and both the life of the woman and the unborn child is in jeopardy, I believe a decision (by medical professionals) would be required. This decision would be made to determine which of the two has the greatest chance of survival and attempt to save the life of the one with the greatest probability of surviving the pregnancy.

A fetus with a genetic defect, regardless if detected early on should not be aborted. This is still murder. Every individual, including those not yet born, have every right to be given the opportunity to succeed in life. The development of medical treatments in the future perhaps can help mend such genetic defects, perhaps not, but that individual should not be denied the right to exist and no one has the right to deny such a right to an individual.

An individual that has been raped has the option of obtaining the "Morning After Pill." Clearly under the majority of circumstances, a rape victim would not wish to carry their attacker's child to term. With this understanding, it should be evident that the "Morning After Pill" be obtained and used to prevent life from beginning, rather than destroying a life that has already begun the process of development. Victim status does not give someone the right over the life of another. Abortion is unacceptable, when the alternatives of the "Morning After Pill" and adoption exists.

Conformity and Appeasement

The reasons for individual citizens and politicians, regardless of political affiliation to take a particular stance on the abortion issue vary, but one particular reason greatly disturbs me, far more than any other. This is when a person determines their stance on an issue based upon conformity and appeasement. What I mean by this is an individual or a politician may determine their stance based solely upon the beliefs of their political party, the more acceptable/popular stance, or due to the positions of which those around that individual take.

There is no lack of evidence for conformity and appeasement in politics. Some politicians who specifically modified their stance based upon this reasoning include former President Bill Clinton, former Vice President Al Gore, Democratic Leader of the House of Representatives Robert Gephardt, and the Reverend Jesse Jackson. [7] These democratic politicians have all at one point in their careers taken a strong stance against abortion. After realizing the unfavorable position they had taken in their party, they quickly rejected their prior beliefs and became Pro-Abortion.

I believe that this affliction is not merely plaguing the Democratic Party, but can also be found in the Republican Party as well. There are many Moderate Democrats and Republicans that take stances in such a way as to be acceptable to the largest portion of the population, regardless of their own personal beliefs, whether they acknowledge them or hide from them.

References

[1] How Pregnancy (Conception) Occurs. Web MD.
http://my.webmd.com/content/healthwise/183/57733
[2] When Does Human Personhood Begin?
http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_when.htm
[3] Boyles, Salynn. Morning-After Pill Works Up to 5 Days.
http://my.webmd.com/content/Article/66/79875.htm
[4] Mann, Denise. Contraception Quagmire: Making Sense of Options.
http://my.webmd.com/content/Article/28/1728_61811.htm
[5] Ibid.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Hannity, Sean. Let Freedom Ring. New York. Harper-Collins Publishers, 2002. 170-186.


Copyright © 2003 The Intellectual Viewpoint