Once I Thought There Was Reasonable Dialogue

The debate about abortion rages back and forth, each side gaining and losing ground at different times, each side accusing the other of inhumanity and cruelty.  Most civilized countries have come to the conclusion that abortion needs to be available, although it would be better if it were not necessary.  Some countries (cough, cough) are not on board.  Many of their citizens think it a crime in a metaphorical sense for abortion to exist, and they would be pleased for it to be so in a legal sense as well.  What if we truly wished to eliminate the act of removing a fetus from its mother from practice?  What would be the consequences?  Are they acceptable?  How can we ameliorate or avoid them altogether?  The opponents of abortion are not happy about considering the real results of their dream.  They wish fervently that we could all live in a baby-worshipping utopia where no pregnancy is ever a burden or a danger and no child destroys the life of its mother, and other family.  How possible is it?  Not very.  However, we might imagine what a humane society would do if it were determined to stamp out as much abortion as possible.  The causes of abortion and the results of its lack must be examined.

The obvious cause of an abortion is an unwanted pregnancy.  If we dig deeper, though, we should ask what makes a pregnancy unwanted.  In most cases the answer is simply the devastating effect it will have on the mother's life and possibly the lives of her loved ones.  Despite pregnancy and birth being the natural ways for animals to reproduce, both of these circumstances can be terribly dangerous to human women.  I think we are all well aware of the stories of maternal death from centuries past, and those deaths are not exclusively attributable to ignorant doctors' filthy hands.  Pregnancy can cause any number of health problems for the mother, including gestational diabetes, incontinence, and deafness.  While the diabetes is normally (always?) temporary, the other physical effects are permanent, lifelong conditions that diminish the quality of life for the mother, even to the point that they may limit her possibilities of employment, another blow to quality of life.  This is why the answer is not simply to give away babies in adoption.  There are other reasons why that cannot be a universal solution, but let us start here: The problem is not just the baby, but the pregnancy itself.  Women who may have wanted to generously donate their young to others can find themselves risking their health and even their lives to do so.  They might abort with a heavy heart, but also with the certainty that they will be able to try again when their circumstances have improved.  Now, how can we alleviate the problem of the problem pregnancy and thereby reduce the number of abortions needed to resolve them?  I see two areas of attack: health care and employment.

Health care is problematic for "regular" people in some countries anyway, let alone for pregnant women and their children.  Yet, it seems perfectly logical that by giving people access to care, they will be healthier to begin with when they come into stressful and demanding situations like pregnancy, and they will be in a better position to deal with possible problems.  Not only will the mother be healthier and better able to care for herself and her child, before and after birth, but also the developing child will be healthier and in a better place when in comes to survival.  We should not forget that health care for children should be a consideration as well.  The difficulties of caring for sick children do not need the added burden of uncertainty in finding care in the first place.  This also connects to the question of employment and employers' policies for parents.  Even a wanted pregnancy can be an enormous sacrifice for a woman in terms of her worklife, since she will undoubtedly have to take at least some time off.  An unwanted or problematic pregnancy will only multiply the trouble and stress.  Of course, this is not merely a case of employers dismissing women out of pure irrational prejudice; the problems of pregnancy are like any other major health problem that take people out of the workplace, and the absence of the worker can be costly to the business.  Add to this the expense of providing a health insurance plan, as enlightened businesses in a country with no public health service are expected to.  It is not hard to understand from a financial standpoint.  At the same time, there are many who decry the reduction of problem pregnancies to their monetary cost, so it is only fair to do the same for jobs.  A good worker is a good worker, and we all deserve the support of not having to expect job loss for a run of bad health.  Now, it is not only the pregnancy but also the maternity leave that bedevils employers, since many months and in some cases years out of the workforce is unlikely to have any benefit when it comes to industry know-how.  Again, if we make the safe assumption that a business is meant to make money and not a fair and kind society, it is not surprising or worthy of condemnation that mothers are discriminated against.  We can blame the business easily, but perhaps the fault and the responsibility should lie with society at large.

While looking out for women who decide to keep their pregnancies is a necessary step, we must also consider those that will not keep them under any circumstances.  The proper road here must be prevention.  How to prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place is a question that we have been wrestling with perhaps since we made the connection between sex an pregnancy.  On one hand, we ought to be teaching everyone about sex and pregnancy so nobody is surprised and in a place where they feel out of options.  We should be giving comprehensive sexual education in schools, whether in science classes or as extra informational modules, explaining the ins and outs of the body without embarrassment and shame.  Another very important component of this education is explaining how contraception functions, even if only to help people make an informed decision to avoid it as much as possible.  However, the key word is "informed".  There is quite a bit of misinformation floating around for the purpose of discouraging the use of contraception - and causing more unwanted pregnancies.  Understanding the reasons behind this behavior most likely requires more knowledge of psychology and more empathy than there is here.  Surely, another space will offer a thoughtful analysis.

Is it enough to offer doctors, jobs, and pills (or other birth control)?  Not quite.  In spite of great strides over the last century or so, many old and unhelpful attitudes remain.  These attitudes are responsible for the fact that the mother is the de facto caregiver, even when her job is as important, or moreso, than that of her male partner.  It is perfectly understandable that working women would shy away from children, even if they harbor a desire for family.  The sacrifice of the mother is typically greater than the father's, as she gives up not only her body to grow and nurture offspring, but her time to care for it for years afterwards, and possibly her career and future stability.  If we genuinely want women to feel secure in their choice to produce children, we have to provide the assurance that options will be available.  Nobody will be effectively under house arrest because of their parental status; children will have places to be cared for while the parents are working; illness will be accepted  as a reason to be distracted or temporarily absent from the workplace.  Not only that, but we must make it acceptable and commonplace for fathers to take care of their children by being present.  There is the illusion of free choice on the part of the parents, but the reality is that we act knowing what social pressures there are, and we make our choices accordingly.  Women who do not have a partner, or not a dependable partner, will consider not having children and ending pregnancies.  This is a simple fact.  If we truly want to encourage more motherhood, we must provide security.  Otherwise, we have no ground to stand on when we complain about abortions and social welfare for families in the same breath.  That is nothing but incoherence in a humane person/society.

What about promoting adoption as a reasonable option?  Many anti-choice advocates remind us that there are many couples desperate to care for children who would be happy to adopt.  They even volunteer to pick up the tab for medical care for poor women and teenagers.  Unfortunately, this seeming great solution ignores the problem of the pregnancy itself.  As noted, the demands of pregnancy can destroy a woman's career path as surely as raising a child can.  It is inhumane to insist that a woman sacrifice her work, or even natural, life under any circumstance.  Those who choose to do so should be supported to the fullest extent, of course, but we must be aware that the demand is extraordinary.  Even for those women who are more than happy to provide their children with more stable lives and other adults with the joy of parenthood, there can very well be emotional difficulties.  Much straw is made over the emotional effects of abortion, apparently ignoring the opinions of the majority of women in the Western world who have the procedure, but nothing is said about the impact of adoption.  After many platitudes about the natural love a woman has for her children, the anti-choicers seem to think she will simply hand them off and go on with her life as if she had only had a tooth removed, perhaps.  There ought to be therapeutic resources available in the case that the pregnant woman or biological mother has negative emotional reactions, either as a result of the hormonal changes in her body or as a consequence of the separation from her child, agreed upon or not.  We cannot have it both ways; women have emotional bonds with their children or they can give them up with a minimum of suffering.  It cannot be the easiest way for those who have no skin in the game.

My conclusion is that abortion is an absolute necessity in a society that claims to value individuals.  We must be allowed bodily autonomy, and the reason the woman's autonomy trumps the fetus's is the same as the reason we do not oblige blood and organ donations.  No person has the right to the use of another's body, even to save their life.  It may be sad to hear, but if we judge ourselves to be respectful of individuals, we must accept it.