The better question is, isn't it a human right to be allowed to LIVE?
Before I continue, I should say that I am pro-life for me and pro-choice for everyone who feels they need that option. But I'm not dumb and I realize the contradiction in values and the moral implications of abortion.
Recently, Alabama’s abortion bill has set fire to my timeline on social media. As a woman, I should be upset. This violates my right to choose what I do with my body, right? I should be able to terminate a pregnancy that I do not want to carry to term. It’s my prerogative and no man – or woman – should be able to control what I do with my body.
Right? Maybe. But, I’m not really upset because I think in my heart, I know it's wrong to fight to be able to kill an unborn child who didn't ask to be conceived and who doesn't get to make the choice to live or die because it is a body living inside my body.
However, something else is happening that is cause for outrage and I will get to that later.
I don’t talk much about it, but I’ve had two abortions in my life – both around 5 weeks gestation. I remember both vividly and while I do not regret either one, I am not proud of them. Because those were selfish choices I made on behalf of a baby that did not ask to be conceived. I was irresponsible and that fetus paid the price for my actions. During my second one, I was in my 30s and chose not to get anesthesia – I wanted to feel the consequences of my action. I don’t recommend it.
But, still, I am pro-choice.
I may not choose abortion for myself again, but it is still a choice. And now there are some states taking that choice away from girls/women (even in instances of rape/incest which I do not agree with at all), but I can understand that as I am pro-life as well. When I talk to my daughter, I let her know that if that’s an option she feels is necessary, I won’t judge her for it, but that I would hope she would choose life. Because a fetus is a human and a human has a right to life, right? Even in the case of rape/incest, a fetus is still a life. But since it wouldn’t be her choice to get pregnant in that circumstance, why should it not be her choice on whether to have the baby or not?
But regardless of circumstance, it should still be HER choice.
Abortion, morally, is wrong. I can agree and accept that. As a society, we’ve dehumanized infants at the point of conception until birth because that makes choosing death for them an easier choice, one without guilt. I’m proof. I do not feel guilt or regret over my decisions and I’m not proud of that fact. What kind of person doesn’t feel anything over exterminating a life before it has a chance to be born? There's no justification except selfishness (except in cases of rape/incest).
The same kind of person who is more concerned with baby animal rights and the rights of every living creature on earth except baby humans who have not been allowed to grow and be brought into the world - regardless of the reason of pregnancy. I see a lot of posts and articles about the horrific crimes done to animals who can’t protect themselves but, in my mind, wouldn’t a fetus also be in the same category of not being able to defend itself? Or is it intent of the mother to keep or abort that dictates how we feel about baby humans versus baby animals?
Yes. And no. Or maybe …
It’s because we don’t consider a fetus a human at all until after birth. And that, folks, is social engineering and conditioning at its finest. That is a contradiction in morals and values that has been indoctrinated over decades through all forms of media and institution to desensitize us to things that we should have strong moral objections about. My own experience is proof of that as well as the evolution on what we now tolerate as acceptable actions and behavior in comparison to 30-40 years ago. But I digress.
If people can champion the ‘rights’ of unborn and baby animals – basically all animals - because they can’t protect themselves, but not the ‘rights’ of unborn and baby humans who also can’t protect themselves, what does that say about humanity?
Nothing really good. And yet, even knowing this, I am still pro-choice for those who feel that is the only option.
What people should really be concerned about – what I feel is a real ‘right’ or necessary ‘privilege’ that may be taken away (if it’s true) – is now there are politicians targeting to regulate or even limit access to affordable birth control pills under the reason that it is ‘pre-abortion.’
Which is utter bullshit and outrageous.
There is no better way to prevent an abortion than to prevent a pregnancy. That, folks, is where your outrage should be. Men – and women – are trying to limit a woman’s choice to prevent unwanted pregnancy by taking away the option for birth control – according to the latest headlines. I’ve yet to fact check it, but if this is even remotely true, it's wrong.
THAT is waging war on women’s reproductive rights or privileges -however you want to classify it.
 |
Think this is a 24 week old 'fetus' born
premature. I struggled with including
this as an illustration, but I feel like
people should be aware of what they
are choosing and for whom. |
Taking away a woman’s privilege to terminate her pregnancy is not a war on women’s bodies. It’s a movement to ‘save the babies.’ I might not agree with it, but I can understand the morals behind it. But taking away a woman’s privilege to use any means necessary to prevent a pregnancy – and then limiting or banning the privilege to abortion in the event of an unwanted pregnancy because she was not allowed to prevent it in the first place – is controlling women’s reproductive choices when it isn’t necessary.
You won’t change my mind.
Forcing women to give birth to unwanted children, thinking they might choose to adopt them out or take one look at that sweet face and fall in love … is a fairy tale. Forcing women to give birth to a child they don’t want fosters resentment and it’s often taken out on the child if they choose to keep him/her rather than adopt out. So when that politician said, “kill ‘em now or kill ‘em later” – he wasn’t lying. It was cruel, blunt truth and not because that child will become a criminal as he tried to say. It’s because there’s a chance that child will be mistreated, abused and even killed before he or she reaches adulthood.
And at least he’s admitting that abortion is, indeed, killing a child. THAT was an unintentional step in the right direction.
If we want to reduce the abortion rate, we need to educate. And not in the “if you don't want to get knocked up, don't have unprotected sex” sense. Start teaching young girls and women to make smarter choices for themselves and their bodies. Explain to them that they become mothers from the point of conception - they are not expecting a child, they HAVE a child. They are not getting ready to ‘be a mom,’ they are already a mom.
To change the way people think about abortion, you need to change the way they think of conception and pregnancy.
Teach them the consequences of being irresponsible with their bodies. Make them respect their bodies and not be so frivolous with them. Show them the fetus at every milestone of gestation so that they understand when they make the decision to abort, that it is a life they are exterminating, not just a ‘clump of cells.’
And if they get pregnant, let them make their own decisions – because when you properly raise and educate your kids, you will be surprised to know they don’t make these decisions lightly - for either choice they make.
As a mother, if my daughter didn’t know any of this, I would say that I’ve failed her as a mom. It is not the government’s or the education system’s job to teach my kid about life, sex and babies. I don’t feel that it should be a government decision to regulate a service like abortion or birth control, much like I opposed the ACA for the same reasons – keep the government out of my healthcare decisions. Although, as a side note, I also do not think the government should subsidize abortions with tax-payer dollars.
And anyone who feels that regulating abortion and birth control is okay, but oppose the ACA needs to admit that they are contradicting themselves. Because you can’t tell everyone that it’s wrong for the government to control healthcare for everyone because we should all have a choice in our own healthcare decisions, but that it’s okay for the government (local or federal) to control the access to birth control - which in my opinion is a healthcare decision that could potentially eliminate the need/want for abortions. One form of government control is not better than another even if you disguise it as a moral issue.
Whether you are pro-choice or pro-life, you’re both right as long as you understand that – morally – abortion is exterminating a HUMAN life. But also know that we have been conditioned to gradually tolerate the unthinkable until we eventually celebrate it.
Killing an unborn child is nothing to celebrate, remember that; but neither is forcing a woman to bring an unwanted child into the world to potentially be mistreated and abused because she didn’t choose to give the child up for adoption (another system that is flawed). It’s a Catch 22.
And even still, I am pro-choice for all the women who feel they need to have that as a backup plan.
My vote is to keep the government and everyone else out of our personal decisions – including healthcare, abortion and birth control.
PS: I can see everyone frantically Googling to Fact Check anything I am saying right now, so let me stop you from making the unnecessary expenditure of energy by clarifying that this is MY OPINION and nothing more. You are free to feel and think as you wish. If I'm wrong about the birth control issue, I'm sure that I'll see it in the news or scrolling across my newsfeed one day.
 |
I don't feel that they do most abortions like this nowadays,
but for context, this is a D&E just after the 1st trimester
and you can clearly see that is a baby & not a clump
of cells. |