Scrivenings of the King-Beyond-The-Wall

Newspaper Clippings #5

A controversial topic, huh? Okay, if we’re going to do this, let’s do it. Not some faux-serious thing or a topic that I can equivocate and both-sides to death. Nah, we’re going to go for it and talk about abortion.

Just to get it out of the way, I need to say that while I am personally against the idea of abortion (i.e., I would not want my spouse or my loved ones to get an abortion except in the most dire of circumstances), I am fully in support of every individual’s right to make that decision for themselves based on their individual circumstances. In a country that prides itself on individual freedom like the United States does, the idea that our citizens would be deprived of the ability to make that decision for themselves (in the case of the mother) or their family (in the case of the father) is atrocious. I am firmly pro-choice, with the caveat that “pro-choice” and “pro-abortion” are not even remotely the same thing. I am “pro-female bodily autonomy.”

That said, I understand that the anti-abortion sentiment coming from the other side of the argument is coming from a place that views fetuses as people and that terminating a pregnancy is essentially the murder of another human being. I understand and share the belief in the sanctity of human life; I’m just of the belief that “human life” begins at the point where a fetus has a chance of surviving independently outside the womb (at approximately 24 weeks). Before that, there’s essentially no chance for survival (the internal organs are literally not sufficiently developed to function), so I can’t in good conscience confer personhood or rights to something that requires another human being to help it develop to the point where it can survive. I also can’t in good conscience tell a pregnant woman that she matters less than the fetus she’s carrying.

Don’t get me wrong; I would love to live in a world where abortion was a thing of the past. But that can’t be accomplished by just making it illegal to perform or receive one. You have to give mothers-to-be better alternatives to choose from. There are plenty of studies out there that show most abortions are undertaken as a last resort. Some are done for medical reasons, to protect the life of the mother or spare the fetus from a lifetime of pain and suffering. Others are done for socioeconomic reasons, especially given the terrible state of the foster care system in this country, and the lack of programs and support for single and/or low-income parents. Raising children to adulthood is both expensive and difficult; some people aren’t in a position to care for a child, and therefore look at abortion as the lesser of two evils compared to bringing a child into the world that can’t be adequately loved and supported.

If people really wanted to curb the number of abortions in this country, the best thing they could possibly do is allocate funding and resources to the foster care system and the welfare system. Every mother-to-be essentially has three options:

         1. Terminate the pregnancy
         2. Give the baby up for adoption
         3. Keep and raise the baby themselves

When option two and three aren’t viable for whatever reason, option one becomes a lot more appealing. The solution is to make option two and option three much more appealing to a prospective parent. Imagine having a vibrant foster system that was able to connect mothers who didn’t want to keep their babies with families for whom adoption is a priority. And imagine having a robust social safety net so that mothers who did want to keep their babies had a wide variety of options, whether that’s support to be a full-time stay-at-home mother, or assistance with things like daycare so they could be a working parent. If there were viable, appealing other options, studies show that the number of abortions in the country would drastically decrease because mothers would have the freedom to choose the best option for themselves, and many mothers don’t want to terminate a pregnancy except as a last resort. Oh, and don’t forget about the personal responsibility of the fathers as well! I have a feeling if there were statutes on the books that required fathers to provide more support and assistance for their biological children, there’d be a lot more support for a social safety net that everyone can take advantage of.

The bottom line for me is that while I personally believe that abortion should be an absolute last resort, that “last resort” place for me is one of medical necessity, because I’m in a privileged position to be able to support the addition of another child to our family, both from a financial standpoint and a community support perspective. But not everyone enjoys those privileges, so it’s not my place to decide what other people should have to endure, especially with the system in the shape it’s currently in. If I were a single working mother, barely making ends meet and already supporting one or two children whom the father abandoned, there’s a good chance that another child is not something I could financially or emotionally support with the current state of the welfare system. And the foster system is a mess, so giving them up and relegating them to the system isn’t really a good option either. And for someone in that situation, who am I to tell them they’re not allowed to terminate a fetus that can’t survive outside the womb anyway? That they have to carry that fetus to term, have the baby, and support that child for the next eighteen years of their lives?

Abortion is awful, but we shouldn’t be trying to legislate women out of their bodily autonomy. Especially not when the alternatives are also detrimental to the child.


______________________________

(1,000 words)


Prompt: Choose a controversial topic from the news. Write an opinion piece on it.