by Lynn Mandaville
I wish people would simply say what it is they really mean. Or act in a manner that reflects the way they say they really feel.
Case in point: The state of Alabama passing draconian legislation outlawing virtually all abortions, and its governor, Kaye Ivey, signing it into law.
This law is not, and never was, intended to be enforceable. Neither was it intended to end all abortions in the state of Alabama. The intent of this law was to present a legal penalty on doctors who perform abortions, and a severe health and civil rights penalty on women who seek them. (This law has been cloned in the states of Georgia, Missouri, Ohio and maybe a couple more this week as well, in the same or slightly varying incarnations.)
The intent of this law was also to generate great hue and cry over the rights of women now protected by Supreme Court precedent in order that the ACLU or Planned Parenthood, or both, would sue over the law, thus thrusting it back in the hands of the US Supreme Court in hopes of a more conservative Court overturning Roe v. Wade.
It would be so nice if so-called adults in America would get together and discuss this issue in pragmatic terms, instead of arguing with their emotions, whatever may be the cause of those emotions.
From what I can glean from politicians, most of those who profess to be pro-lifers really want to end what they consider impulse abortions resulting from failed or lack of using contraception. I deduce this from the fact that most who favor anti-abortion legislation leave open the door for abortions for danger to the mother’s health/life, and, often, also for pregnancies resulting from rape or incest. I have yet to hear anyone anti-abortion even broach the subjects of abortion of fetuses that are not viable, or that would result in a baby so ill or deformed or diseased that it could not live outside its mother without great suffering and ultimate early death any way you cut it.
From what I glean from pro-choicers is that they might have little or no objection to most abortions if society as a whole stepped up to the quality of life for the pre-born, for affordable and widely accessible women’s reproductive health care, free prenatal health care for those not covered by insurance or personal wealth, and financial support for those who cannot afford to clothe, feed or house an unwanted baby. And if that society also stepped up to the failures of the foster care system, the sale of babies for profit (by unscrupulous attorneys fronting for unwed mothers, grifter surrogates, and the like), and the mental health shortcomings more and more rampant in the US that contribute to child abuse, sexual or otherwise.
So, basically, the problem is actually one of semantics. Pro-choice and Pro-life are no longer terms with clear meanings. Their definitions, in most cases, are horribly blurred.
Speaking as one who is termed, unfortunately, pro-choice, many of us believe that abortion is an alternative of the very last resort. It is not birth control, and it shouldn’t be a substitute for our failure as a society, or as individuals, for not instructing our youth about human reproduction. We believe that the decision to abort a baby is the hardest decision any woman might have to face in her lifetime, and that it is a heart and gut wrenching one that should be made only by that woman, with guidance from her partner, clergyperson, and physician if she desires.
Speaking as one who has many friends who are termed, unfortunately, pro-life, many of them believe there are extenuating circumstances under which a woman ought to be free to exercise control over her own body and terminate a pregnancy. I’ve stated the most obvious reasons above, but there exist far too many other instances to list here in which some of these friends would consider abortion the acceptable choice for an individual woman to make without the interference of others.
There are “purists” out there who vocally espouse an absolute, legislative ban on abortions, just as there are those who just as vocally advocate for a complete, legislative hands-off stance on abortions.
In my opinion, either extreme ignores valid grey areas that need more than mere consideration. The two extremes require, in the United States of America, an actual consensus on what is both realistic and compassionate, versus what is both religious dogma and legalistic punitiveness.
I know that there are those who believe that aborting any baby, whether zygote or full-term stillborn, is clearly prohibited by the word of God. Yet lots of those same people also believe that capital punishment is an acceptable form of terminating life at the hands of other human beings.
I know that those who believe that capital punishment is an abomination and should be abolished nationwide also believe that in some cases it is acceptable to terminate the life, or potential life, of a developing human being at the hands of a medical professional.
I’m not sure how we get the two sides together to see that they both are grappling with the issues of life and death. We seem to agree that some lives are more worthy of preserving than others. It’s the prefix that provides the ambiguity of anti- versus pro- in our terminology. There doesn’t really seem to be a dispute that both abortion and capital punishment mean intentional death to human form. The dispute is the situation in which that death is acceptable.
So when you get right down to it, God really has nothing to do with it. It is human free will that decides the question either way, and we are the humans with the free will to come to an agreement.
Because we do not live in a theocracy, it is up to us humans to reach a resolution, in a civil manner, how we deal pragmatically with the grey areas of life and death in a democracy. To approach it in any other way would be careless, that is, without care – for each other and for the various twists and turns of God’s Will or fate or karma, or whatever you choose to call it.
Couldn’t we ask the same question of newly born babies? That is to say, if it’s OK to abort a baby that already has developed to the point where they have arms, legs, and working organs, why is it not OK to “abort” a new born baby that is born with a severe defect? What is the difference between the two if there is no harm to the mother? Then, one might ask, what if there is someone standing outside the room ready to adopt this baby with the defect and is willing to care for them until, dare I say, God decides it is time to bring that child home to Him? Or, what if a cure for that babies disease is realized within a couple years of the baby being born and he/she has the opportunity to live a “normal” life?
Please stop looking for ways to kill humans.
Fun fact…it is illegal to crush (or otherwise kill) a bald eagle’s egg. Doing so carries with it fines and imprisonment. We have laws to protect a species that is not endangered. The law is there because the bird is a symbol of America and is unable to protect itself from us. How much more does a human baby symbolize America? Without them, there is no America. We care more about deporting families that are in America breaking our laws than killing our own family members.
How confused we are. “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.” – Jesus Luke 23:34
Spoken Like a true liberal.
There is no gray area in Abortion. Abortion is simply the murdering of babies. It doesn’t matter if mom is 2wks along, 6mo along or full term. Abortion is murder. Period -end of discussion
To say that God is not part of this is simply not true. A baby is the greatest earthly gift we receive from our Lord. He created the baby, The baby is alive, with its own DNA, feels pain, and moves. Killing it for what ever reason is murder.
“But it is my body, my choice.” Yes, it is your choice to hop in the sack. Resulting in a baby –which you have no right to murder-to cover your bad choice
Planned Parenthood –Oh. this organization is to help women. Yes, they make a pile of money killing babies-1 every 15 minutes at 500.00 a pop. They do not protect women. Sex trafficking goes right through their door-no onestops it. The birth control they give –to help women- is not as strong as the pill your get from your doctor–hence more abortions.
Emily’s list–heard of them! They are a fine organization. A bunch of rich women that support the elections of Pro Abortion Women. Just like our pro-abortion Gov.
You want to know the truth behind Abortion. See the movie-Unplanned. Numerous books have been written by former directors of Planned Parenthood.
Attend a Pro Life group. North Allegan RTL meets the second Tuesday of every month at Dorr Library. Or check out our website.
27 men in Alabama made a decision concerning the bodies of the women in that state. There has been, and will continue to be, safe and legal abortions for the wealthy women. There was a medical doctor in Oakland County that would provide abortions for women that could pay (a lot more that $500). Travel to other countries will always be an option for those of means.
Bill Clinton said 25 years ago, “Abortion should be safe, legal, and rare.” Hilary Clinton reiterated this during the campaign of 2016*, adding, “when I say rare, I mean very, very rare.”
Since other commentators have suggested reading material, I recommend “A Book of American Martyrs” by Joyce Carol Oates, and “The Cider House Rules” by John Irving.
*In that election, the majority of the Americans that bothered to vote, voted for Hilary Clinton
I think we agree that the AL law recently passed by have truly been passed to be a catalyst for the Supreme Court to overturn Roe vs. Wade. This is also why we’ve seen so many states declaring laws about how unborn will be treated in their state. When (not if) Roe falls, the abortion debate of legality will fall to the states.
You bring up a few points as to why abortion should remain a woman’s choice. I hope we can agree that the baby is a separate human being as it has unique DNA from the mother. The argument that a woman can do “whatever she wants with her body” doesn’t fly with me because the baby is IN her body, not actually HER body. And I don’t ever hear the argument that abortion should only be legal early in pregnancy from those advocating for abortion. They want all or nothing. And where do we draw the line? I have a friend who has a grandbaby that was born at 21 weeks gestation and is doing great with the help of amazing NICU staff at DVCH.
I just have a few questions myself with possible options that I believe remove the need to keep abortion as an option for women:
How many women choose abortion because they have been told their baby has a life-threatening defect or will have life-long health issues? Do you not have friends/family who have kids with physical challenges? Or maybe you know a woman who had a late-term miscarriage or still birth? Ask any of those women if they would change anything? Plus, if we just throw away babies with “challenges” before they are born, why even bother with research to help those with health issues? Why maintain a NICU at hospitals? If the answer is “for those babies we choose to let live”…that’s a whole other issue!
How many women get an abortion because of rape? Did they report the rape? If so, emergency contraception pills can be taken to avoid pregnancy occurring. DNA of the perp is also collected when the rape is reported which can lead to arrest and no further women being assulted by that creep!
How many women choose abortion because they can’t afford to have a child? Medicaid is available for women under the poverty level and after the baby is born, WIC and (MI) Bridge card assistance is available. Many charitable organizations exists that help single moms and, remember the dad! Men are legally bound to provide monetary child support! Granted, these are not the best answers for a poor woman. This is why birth-control before sex is the best option. Yes, many times birth control attempts fail (has anyone studied these stats lately??!) and a poor woman finds herself pregnant. I think we agree that free birth control would solve a lot of unwanted pregnancies. But I thought Planned Parenthood provided that?? If not, maybe they could use some of the millions of taxpayer dollars for that??!
How many women choose abortion because they think, if they can’t afford to raise it, their baby will languish in a “broken foster care system”? When an adoption is arranged, the baby is never put into the foster system. And many times the adoptive parents pay for pre-natal care expenses.
I have a final question for those who think abortion needs to remain legal: Why not choose adoption? Yes, it’s emotional extremely difficult, but so is choosing abortion. And when a baby is selflessly given up for adoption, at least the mother knows the child is alive! Look into stats on suicide and mental anguish of women who regret their abortion. Living with the fact that you choose to kill your unborn child must be amazingly haunting.
Sorry this is so long. There are so many facets to this debate when you take away the fact that the unborn are just people who deserve a right to be born. I welcome any civil discourse.
Ms. Mandaville, from your writing you seem to be someone who honestly wants to approach things peacefully, reasonably and rationally. You hope others will also do so to the point of consensus. That would be quite something to achieve on an issue such as abortion. But it is not at all the reality of human positions and interactions regarding life and death as history will attest.
No significant controversial issue in life will ever get to a point of “consensus”. There will always be competing ideas and positions vying for acceptance and legal implementation.
There is zero public debate as yet whether or not a 9-month-old child is a human being whose life is protected by law. The current debate is instead concerning the months of development of a child prior to birth and shortly thereafter. The present debate also concerns what all a woman is allowed by law to do with her body.
There is zero public debate whether or not a woman or a man has the right to do as she/he pleases with her/his body with regard to the life of another innocent person. I can’t simply decide to use my body to injure or take the life of another person who is innocent simply by my choice of how I choose to use or control my body. I’m not allowed under the law to choose to prevent any innocent person of any age from growing, breathing, developing or simply living. No one can or should be allowed to legally do so. The law rightly prohibits it. And yet, many who agree totally with such a law restricting me and all others from using our bodies to injure, impede of kill them still argue boldly and aggressively that they or certain other should be able to use their bodies in any way they please, including putting an end to a life, tearing another body apart, disallowing it to grow and develop and throwing it in the trash bin.
There is no actual “middle ground” whatsoever to this issue. No rational and responsible person would ever say, as Bill Clinton did, that by choice killing other innocent people ought to be safe, legal and rare. It is never acceptable. Never. Ending the life of someone who is a dangerous scourge to society by clear proof is quite a different matter. God instituted capital punishment as can be read many times over in the scriptures. But God clearly condemns the willful taking of innocent lives in far too many pronouncements to be included here. Yes, God is involved in this issue. Human choices do not nullify God’s presence, sovereignty and righteous judgments.
Everyone who is for abortion was not themselves aborted. They received their right to life, but they want to justify denying that same right to another at will by their choice that they claim trumps the right to life of the unborn. One would think that this would be self-evident as clearly wrong and illegal. But few things are self-evident anymore in this brave new world. We, claimed by some to be the most enlightened people in all of history, are arguing about which innocent lives should be able to live and which should not. We who know that all innocent lives are to be defended now have to take time to uphold the most basic aspects of truth, responsibility and rationality in life. But merely pleading with a blind person to see will not cause them to see. However, informing and admonishing a wise person can cause them to change their minds. That is why I believe speaking up for what is true and right is well worthwhile. Not for all but for some.