Forcing a woman to stay pregnant against her will violates a fundamental right of the woman to decide what happens to her body, regardless of consequences to others -- namely the death of her child. But why care what men say when we talk about women's bodies? well, lawmakers and people in leadership positions are all men to a first approximation, and it makes sense to look at the problem from the perspective of those who make decisions.
Whatever law we pass, and whatever position we take as lawmakers, both forced terminations and forced pregnancies will happen in our society. Making abortion illegal at state level is likely to increase the number of children abandoned and satisfy the demands of the adoption market. It will also make it harder for employers, husbands, boyfriends, mothers and others to openly pressure a woman into a termination. A forced termination is a terrible thing, but something that continues to happen throughout our society. This, too, goes very much against the rights of the woman and those of her baby.
The question is how many forced pregnancies are we willing to tolerate in order to eliminate a forced termination? The logic should be like when we give people a vaccine. Vaccines have costs, side effects and, at times, result in the death of the vaccinated. They also result in a reduction in death and disability associated with the disease they are intended to protect from.
The following questions are standard for the vaccine makers is
-- How many people do we need to vaccinate in order to avoid a case of clinical illness
-- How many people do we need to vaccinate in order to avoid a death caused by illness
-- How many people will die due to the side effects of the vaccine for each death avoided due to the disease
The equivalent questions for the case of abortion are
-- How many people do we need to subject to a law forbidding abortion in order to avoid a case of forced abortion?
-- How many people do we need to subject to a law forbidding abortion in order to avoid a case an abortion?
-- How many unwanted pregnancies will continue for every wanted pregnancy that is saved from unwanted termination due to social and peer pressure?
Why do women choose to have abortions when the baby appears healthy and their life is not threatened by the pregnancy? Well, the procedure comes with less risks than carrying the baby to term. In other words, it's easier and people often take the easy route when they have little support along the uphill path. But why not consider alternatives, such as putting the baby for adoption? There is a shortage of babies on the adoption market. Prospective parents face fierce competition and long waiting times. Many don't get the chance to choose which child they adopt and many don't end up getting a child at all. Creating a baby and giving it up for adoption results in the time, money and lives of the adopted parents being invested in the baby. This way, the woman channels resources she'd never have access to into raising her baby. This should be seen as a good thing. Yet, we have vastly more terminations than adoptions. Why??
Pregnancy (1) is a situation where typically 2 people share one body. It's like when people live in the same flat, just a little closer. So close that one is alive inside the other. One of these people, the mother has lived about half of her life without the baby, has had a contribution in choosing the genetic makeup of the child, who is yet to be born. A termination or abortion happens when these two people don't get along. The mother requires immediate separation from the baby, with the understanding that such separation will result in the death of the baby. The Supreme Court is then called to arbitrate this disagreement. The baby is too small to talk. Thus, the judges speak on his or her behalf.
Should the mother continue with her pregnancy, she stands to lose some time from work and potential loss of life and health through complications related to pregnancy and birth, and part of herself. She won't be the same person she was before having the baby if she chooses to keep it. Typically, a six week maternity leave is available in the US for mothers who keep the child. Women who have terminations typically don't want the child or don't think they can handle the upbringing and can't bring themselves to put that burden on somebody else.
Sarah Pallin made headlines when went into labour with her 5th child while giving a talk. She continued her presentation, went to the airport, flew to Alaska, drove to her hospital and gave birth. She then left her child at home and was back at work the following day. She kept the child, but the help available to her meant she had the same childcare burden as a woman putting her child for adoption.
All in all, assuming pregnancy, followed by abandoning the baby, costs a woman 9 months of childbearing, 6 weeks of income and some setbacks in her career. It doesn't sound like much to a man who has never raised children. The unborn baby stands to lose his life. If not aborted people have about 100 healthy happy years to live. It is hard to understand why women assess the value of the 100 years of life the child would have gained through their pregnancy so little that they choose to terminate.
One would assume that, if women were reasonable players, giving due love and consideration to their unborn children, we'd have more unwanted pregnancies ending up in adoption than abortion.
Why is this not the case?
Possible reasons are:
-- Peer pressure
-- The most likely culprit is the male partner. Men are forced by law to take responsibility for their children. Thus, if a woman has a child, the man may have to pay something or help a little bit. As such, many men decide against having children. When their partners are pregnant, they pressure the woman to have terminations. If the woman doesn't accept, she usually has to put up with verbal arguments, psychological pressure and, in extreme circumstances, some financial strain and a divorce.
--Sometimes, the mothers or family members pressure women into terminations. Usually, these are again verbal arguments. Sometimes, a little violent, but often not. Maybe, in the eyes of the family, the woman has too many children, or she is at the wrong time of her career to care for a child.
Neither husbands nor families are supportive of the idea of abandoning a child after birth, and they prefer killing the child before birth. This is probably because an existing born child would have a powerful legal claim upon their estate. The child would be entitled to some level of support and inheritance. He could be a nuisance and a burden, even if abandoned.
-- Employers and the State. Often pregnancy can result in loss of income or loss of employment. A woman's career is often set back by pregnancy. Thus, women find themselves under pressure to avoid pregnancies in order to compete professionally and earn good wages.
Both the State and employers are probably accepting of women who abandon their children, although child abandonment isn't necessarily the best thing on a CV.
-- The woman's desire to preserve her body presumably for the purpose of attracting men. Pregnancy is seen as a process that lowers the degree of sexual attractively of a the woman. The consequences of pregnancy, such as extra weight or saggy breasts are also seen as not terribly sexy by men. So is a larger vagina, as may be the case after childbirth. Many women look great after having children, but this is often a concern and reason to have a termination instead of a successful pregnancy followed by child abandonment.
-- Inability to abandon a child. In some situations, a woman is not able to abandon her child. It may be unacceptable to her religion, or family or public image. What would the world think of Ivanka Trump if she choose to abandon a child, instead of having a termination? Most likely no one would ever know if Mrs Trump had an abortion. Abandoning a child would clearly make the news and probably harm their political reputation and be a reason for blackmail. As such, other women are pushed by society to choose abortion over abandoning.
-- the belief that the unborn baby is not human. Thus, killing it before birth is not a bad thing. Sure, unborn babies lack many of the faculties of grown up people, but they have a full life that they can live if allowed to be born. Does a baby need sentience in order to exercise ownership over his right to live a full life expectancy?
Many adults who are as sentient as an unborn baby are considered humans and given the right to live. People who suffer strokes, dementia, brain damage are often less able to interact with the world than an unborn baby. Also, unlike the baby, they lack potential for future development and for leading a full live. If we consider the lack of faculties of an unborn baby as an illness, it is an illness that, in most cases, gets cured by the passage of time, without medicine and effort. Thus, why not allow these unborn babies to cure their lack of maturity when we support the lives of so many old people of similar ability, but with little or no hope for recovery?
I end this post with my wish that lawmakers take decisions based on data -- in general -- but especially when they alter laws that affect fundamental human rights. We should know what data led to their decision. The data should be public, and its analysis should be done by scientists and data analysts. And if data changes, the decision should be re-evaluated.
In the case of abortion we should be able to answer questions like in the case of a drug or vaccine like the ones I am posing below:
-- How many people do we need to subject to a law forbidding abortion in order to avoid a case of forced abortion?
-- How many people do we need to subject to a law forbidding abortion in order to avoid a case an abortion?
-- How many unwanted pregnancies will continue for every wanted pregnancy that is saved from unwanted termination due to social and peer pressure?
No comments:
Post a Comment