It seems to me that the ongoing "pro-life"/"pro-choice" debate goes nowhere because proponents on either side are still mired in the past.
The opposing assumptions:
- Criminalizing abortion will lead to barbaric coat hanger procedures to prevent unwanted pregnancies, or doom unwanted children, and their mothers to lives of poverty and despair.
- Abortion is a barbaric procedure, killing a human being, something that any civilized society would view with as much disgust as exposure of an unwanted child.
It is undeniable that in some circumstances pregnancy and childbirth would be detrimental to the well-being of mother, or child, or both.
It also seems self-evident that destroying a potentially viable human being is equally unacceptable.
Therefore our goals should be
- the reduction or elimination of unwanted pregnancy
- civilized ways of dealing with unwanted pregnancies should they occur
more below the fold
The Reduction or Elimination of Unwanted Pregnancies
Since this is the best solution for the abortion dilemma, a sensible policy would focus most of its energy on eliminating unwanted pregnancy. "Pro-choicers" almost never talk about this and we should call them on it. If you truly want to prevent abortions then... The first and most obvious step would be thorough education on methods of preventing pregnancy. Such education, especially that aimed at teens, should include information both on abstinence, contraception and non-procreative sexual behaviors. I realize that the last two are frowned upon by traditional conservatives, but I would argue that if someone is sincerely opposed to abortion, then they are obligated to pursue any and all courses of action needed to prevent it. Some would pursue abstinence only education, but this is a
pipe dream. Some teens will inevitably have sexual relationships before marriage, and some of those relationships will inevitably result in unwanted pregnancies. The question is would you rather your daughter know how to use a condom, or would you rather she face the choice between teen motherhood or abortion?
The second step towards reducing or eliminating unwanted pregnancy is to make contraceptives easily available to any potentially sexually active person. Pregnancy is many things, but at its core, it is a biological/medical condition which can be prevented with very straightforward means. Again, if one is serious in their opposition to abortion, then one would fight to make every reasonable means of contraception readily available. Ideally a potentially sexually active person should be as able to obtain contraceptives as easily as cough syrup, and with as much, or rather, as little stigma.
Civilized Ways of Dealing With Unwanted Pregnancies Should They Occur
Though effective education, and the ready availability of contraceptives should eliminate the vast majority of unwanted pregnancies, some unwanted pregnancies will no doubt, continue to occur. What then?
Provide sufficient public support for mothers who choose to keep their babies, including medical coverage, continuing education, job training and day care.
Provide incentives for mothers who place their children for adoption.
Allow early term abortions where the fetus would not be viable outside the mother's womb.
Allow later term abortions where the mother's health of life would be endangered by continuing the pregnancy to term.
I realize the last two propositions will be controversial with the current "pro-life" crowd, so I will explain my reasoning further.
Early Term Abortions
Arguing that a blastocyst has the potential for human life, and should thus remain inviolable is specious. Given the advances in modern medicine, any cell containing complete human DNA has the "potential" for human life. Should we then be trying to protect all our skin cells? Until science advances further I believe a reasonable standard is whether a fetus would be viable outside its mother's womb given current medical abilities. If those abilities change in the future so be it, then the standard would change. But until then...
Late Term Abortions
This is the place where we must make the most terrible of zero-sum decisions: who will live and who will die? My view is that here, the greater needs of society must prevail. Quite frankly, an adult woman is of greater value than an unborn child. An adult has had the benefit of education at society's expense, has had some training and experience in maneuvering in this world, and has definite consciousness of her circumstances as a functioning human being. Here I see the choice as being between the potential and the actual. In which case I side with the actual.
The debate is incorrectly framed, and thus leads to continued debate. Am I pro-choice? What enlightened being isn't? Am I pro-life, hmm let's see, living v. non-living, yup I'm pro-life too. The point is that there are rational exits from this conundrum if we choose to pursue them.