Treat Problem, Not Symptom

Reframing

Imagine that you go to your doctor with pain. Your doctor spends the whole time debating whether using Tylenol or Advil is the right thing to do. And you say, "But Doctor, I want to know the CAUSE of the pain! What is the problem? Shouldn't we find that out instead of just discussing how to treat the symptom?"

The Problem is unwanted pregnancy. So why is the whole debate about the symptom of abortion? Is it any wonder that no resolution is in sight? The issue needs to be re-framed in order for anything to get accomplished. Right now there is a tug-of-war that is wasting the time and energy of many passionate people who have the power to really fix things if directed to the right area.

How's this: both sides agree to leave the legal question alone. Now I know this will be difficult to those on both sides who have spent their lives and stake their identity on their side of the issue. But hear me out. If we call a truce, and direct all the energy and resources to education and healthcare and fixing the child welfare system instead, wouldn't more women and children be helped? Some root causes of the unwanted pregnancy problem are lack of education, access to healthcare, and lack of options for adoption or foster care, and a child welfare system that is in desperate need of funds and personnel. There is something here for the pro-choicers, who generally align themselves with the welfare of the mothers, and the pro-lifers who are generally align themselves with children's welfare. (See also "Revolution and Polarity," 10/10/06.)

Faulty Logic

There is some faulty logic in the abortion debate, and I just want to point some of it out. Since college, I have questioned every issue, and have found as much to disagree with as agree with in the beliefs of those around me. The central question is whether an embryo or fetus is human. If you use genetics as the hallmark, the organism has human DNA. If you use functionality (the ability to communicate, reason, etc.) then even term newborn babies are not human because they cannot do these things yet. If you use the ability to exist without a supported living environment, then those on ventilators are not human.

A word about the law: Laws should set a consistent standard. Right now, the law accepts the value placed on the fetus by outside agents. If a fetus is valued, ending its life is considered murder (Scott Peterson). If it is not valued, ending its life is "therapeutic" or "choice." The law should have one standard. It is not so malleable in regards to victims of murder (for example). It's not ok to kill someone whose life is less valued by outside agents or standards, like a homeless person vs a young mother.

There are inconsistencies about location. Medicine is sustaining the life of premature babies at 24 weeks gestation and younger. The organism is the same: a less-than-term [fill in the blank: fetus, baby, whatever label you like]. Any action that would cause the death of that organism while in a NICU incubator would be construed as murder. But if the location of the same organism is inside the mother's body, it is again "therapeutic" or "choice."

And there is the questionability of the "end justifies the means" argument. This argument is always shaky because it overlooks something wrong. Some child will be brought into a bad situation, or some mother got herself into a bad situation, or lived in a bad situation so did not have options to prevent pregnancy. So the end result is a solution to this problem, which makes abortion ok. I have personally seen examples of young mothers whose situation is greatly improved by terminating pregnancy. But it whould have been much better for her had she not gotten pregnant in the first place. That's superior to choosing between bad and worse options.

Then there is the argument that fixes the entire policy based on the minority of cases- the rape or mother's health in jepordy instances. Does abortion have to be available for all just because of these instances? The rape case is unique because personal responsibility is not the reason for the pregnancy. And when the mother's health is in danger, the decisions should be made by the family and doctors on an individual basis.

Taking Responsibility

On a personal note, I am a pretty old-fashioned, no-fun person. I believe in taking responsibility for your actions. If you choose to do a risky activity like skydive, you need to be prepared for the possible mortal consequences. No one is entitled to life without consequences. I have written before about a person's set of circumstances determining whether they are acting out of free will ("But What is Freedom," 10/11/06). Lack of education and access to healthcare, or living in a situation where sex is used to gain acceptance are some instances where personal responsibility is less.

However, it's not like getting hit by a bus. When people knowingly engage in an activity with the potential consequence of pregnancy, they need to be making responsible decisions. We are bound by the laws of our physiology. No one is entitled to be free of those laws. It's like saying you shouldn't have to breathe or eat. With the aforementioned exceptions like rape, people should weigh the decsion to have sex against the possible consequence of pregnancy. They should accept the risk without depending upon an ethically and logically questionable solution to escape the consequences.