My Views: Right To Choose

A reader of my essay on abortion rights would be right to assume that I support both a woman's right to choose whether or not have an abortion and the choice itself in various contexts. It should be stressed, however, that opposition to abortion on moral or other grounds does not necessarily mean opposition to a constitutional right to choose an abortion. The Constitution protects many things most oppose, so one can support the "right" to do something, still feel it is wrong. The Constitution does not force us to do things like express racist ideas or hold religious beliefs that are offensive, but the government may not prevent such action. Furthermore, many with libertarian leanings do not support everything they feel should be legal. My purpose here, however, is to supply my personal belief on the abortion issue, touching upon issues that are not matters of constitutional concern as such.

This essay states my personal feelings on the matter, but a word about the "the right to privacy might be a good idea, but where in the Constitution are the courts getting the right to force it upon us?" argument. First off, when someone trots out this argument, they often really don't like the right they are talking about. Second, I hope my main constitutional essay explains the argument is flawed. Third, since a major wing of the adherents of this criticism of court protection of privacy rights truly do care about them, deep down they do agree there is a constitutional right to privacy. Major societal division does not make this any less true, so how can we allow legislatures to limit the right to choose an abortion, except in relatively minor ways? A more gradual recognition by the courts of abortion rights (as was the policy to end segregation) would have made more sense, but if legislatures are not going to protect our fundamental rights, who else but the courts will?

My support of abortion rights is largely based on my belief that the choice involved is basically a religious one. I continually hear how this is a "moral" issue, which is exactly right. I was led to believe (I might be wrong, I guess) that "morality" is a matter of personal religious belief that is not generally the government's business. If the government has no business telling parents who cannot really take care of a child that they cannot have them because it is "immoral" to do so, why can the government force the same parents to have a child (or give the child up for adoption after nine months of pregnancy, a nice option, but one few can bear doing)? The answer supplied is that the unborn child is a human life we must protect, though this is a view only a minority agrees with, especially given the exceptions a vast majority are willing to support.

The exceptions tend to fall under three categories: the health and/or the life of the mother are seriously in danger, the child will be born with some serious disability, or the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest. A possible fourth is when the mother is a young teen, especially under fourteen or fifteen years old. I would note right away that we do not generally allow all but the first reason to influence ending the life of people who are born, though some might support it in some cases, such as the desire to kill a rapist. I also think that once we open the door in these ways, logically we really cannot stop there. Logic and consistency can be shown to make the unborn=born argument of the "pro-life" side a lot less clear than either might wish.

If we allow an abortion to prevent a seriously disabled child, why should we not if the child will enter the world with so much going against him or her that life might very well be worse than a disabled child with the support to have a decent life? There are many ways how the health of a mother can be threatened, including the continual stress of pregnancy and a child she cannot handle. The horror of rape and life knowing your father is a rapist cannot be fully imagined, but many can or do survive with the love and support they need. Many not the result of rape or incest, however, have a life as horrible ahead of them. If we support some type of post-conception "birth control" right after a woman is raped, is an abortion a few weeks later much different? Finally, it cannot be denied some of these reasons are at least partly based on the psychological harm the parents (especially the mother) suffer (especially in the case of rape, but also dealing with disabled children); I can think of many other situations where abortion might be an option that would supply comparable harm.

Adoption is offered as an alternative to abortion, but realistically it is generally a poor (if very compassionate) one, as shown by how few actually are willing to give up their children up for adoption. The emotional connection to one's child alone makes adoption very difficult. Furthermore, not only are many children sadly not good adoption material (to be blunt about it), but some legitimately feel it is immoral to give birth to a child and trust that some other parents will raise his/her properly. It is to be noted that if a child is not born, the child (unless you believe in past lives or such) does not know about it. This makes the question of "how would you like not being born," rather dumb, besides the fact being (given the choice) some might not want to be born. The child of an advocate for abortion (plaintiff in Doe v Bolton) voiced her support of abortion rights, even though her mother might not have had her if the right was out there. Finally, there are various lawsuits pending concerning faulty condoms, statutory rape, and misdiagnosed mothers based on the idea of unwanted childbirths.

The glorification* of childbirth in a nation that is surely not lacking in population (there is actually a constant call to curb immigration) also troubles me, as does the hugh stress suffered by some who have trouble or are unable to have a child. As noted, I find it really unfair that the moral and practical choice to have a child is given special treatment in health funding in most states, when the help is as valuable (and cheaper) for those who choose abortion. Each case is somewhat unique, and religious and personal freedom in general means that we should equally benefit the other side when they make the choice they feel is best. This is especially so when we allow women to take fertility drugs that lead to multiple births, births that threaten to overwhelm them as well as the health of some of the babies. Nonetheless, we do not force mothers to abort some of these unnaturally conceived children, even if it might be in the other children's best interests.

It is not my choice to make, but I personally find it distasteful to risk the lives and happiness of children to alleviate the parents' need for children. The money and help supplied would often be best used elsewhere; it also shows just how incomplete adoption is for all those parents who are willing to spend loads of money and physical hardship to have a baby (or babies) on their own. Finally, the pressure society puts on women to have birth is sometimes taken to ridiculous heights, helping to explain why some women go to equally ridiculous heights to have children. The choice not to have a child is sometimes just as correct as the choice to have one; and not having one is not some type of shameful character flaw.

A special group in this area is teenagers, who also have a (more limited) right to choose an abortion. Many support the right of younger teens to have an abortion, though arguably immaturity in parenthood runs much farther than thirteen to fifteen year olds. This is also a group where prevention is a major issue. Nonetheless, I feel ultimately the choice to have or not to have a child is up to the teen. A teen is generally mature enough to make such a decision, even if she should not be in such a position, and the decision will uniquely affect her for the rest of her life. Furthermore, forcing her to notify or gain consent of one or especially both parents is ill advised. The few not willing to do so often either have good reason to or will be suitably counseled by other adults, some of whom will encourage them to tell their parents. Forcing the issue would likely to lead the teen to go to another state, go to a judge (likely to grant a bypass to such laws), or in some other way circumvent the law (a few suffered risky illegal abortions, including at least one who died of one).

The right to choose an abortion might be legal throughout the country, but as a practical matter, it is burdened in various degrees via many factors. The greatest burden is personal opponents to abortion that make it their business to make having and performing them as stressful as possible. This helps to explain why having a child is a popular theme on tv and movies, while abortion (or even thinking about it) is a rarity even today. In some states, especially for abortions later in the pregnancy, there are very few places to have an abortion. A few states only have one location to have them, making them especially good targets for protesters. I support their right to free speech, but this does not make the result any less tragic, including the unfortunate diminishing number of skilled abortion doctors and providers. Needless to say, I feel any violence to people or property in the name of life is (besides being counter-effective) both hypocritical and appalling. I understand concern for the unborn and the pains of abortion, but again, unwanted and endangered children and forcing parenthood upon those unwilling or unready is often much worse.

All of this discussion obviously (or should be, though there is sadly a need to make this clear) does not mean I feel abortion is not a hard choice that should not have to be made. The unfortunate case is that sometimes it is a choice that on balance should be made, and I do not want the government to be making it, even if I do not agree with the choice in the particular instance. The alternative would be that the state or some other body would control our bodies and freedoms in the name of the moral values of others, or how others feel we should live our lives. This is not the way it works in a free society and lead to more illegal and dangerous abortions. Finally, supporting abortion rights does not in some way spit upon the rights of children born in situations where some might choose abortion. Are those who use contraception to prevent such children in some way heartless?

Abortion is and for a long times has been a choice women have undertaken for a variety of reasons, when they had the freedom to make it. A choice generally most would not take if they were not driven to it by the relatively poor other options supplied. We can imagine many ways to cut down the number abortions that do not unconstitutionally abridge fundamental freedoms. These means include counseling those at risk of having a child (especially teens) before they are ready and giving them other options in life. Additional prenatal and post-natal support and funding, and more concern of making the world into one into which parents would want a child to be born; more education and cultural support of contraceptive use for those who are most likely to use faulty or no contraception; greater support for adoptions and foster care, and so on. The list continues, but an imperfect world, as well as unwanted pregnancies will continue to make abortion an option many will take for years to come. An option often by those who would in other cases say they oppose abortions; the choice is theirs to make, not mine, yours, or the government's.

A discussion on this issue is not complete without touching upon the argument that abortion is but one part of society's disrespect for life, along with violence on the streets and in the media, the death penalty, our me-first selfish society, and so on. The short answer is that in a perfect world abortions would not be necessary, but in our world sometimes they are the best choice for those involved. Furthermore, the death penalty is different since we are dealing with a person who has had a life to live, could make choices, including challenging a penalty with a lot wrong with it. Yes, abortion does provide us an "easy" way out when sex brings unwanted conception and does so via an act of violence, but we must look at it in the proper perspective. Is it selfish to want what is best for our children, including being wanted? Is an act of violence versus an unborn child, one usually in the early stages of development, worse than a life at risk?

I also reject the use of abortion as a scapegoat for our problems, when general opposition to abortion (at least in theory, being forced to make the choice, people often change their minds both pro and con) still remains high, and the problems still remain. It is somewhat simplistic to argue that choosing not to bring a child into this world equals not caring about the needy who are in this world, especially given the right to choose and care of such individuals often is a major concern of the same group of people. [Likewise, opposition to abortion does not only exist in conservative types who oppose programs to help the needy; some "pro-lifers" are clearly feminists and/or liberals. Others feel the best way to help is private charity, and are involved in helping those they feel should not be aborted.] Freedom does bring more choices, some that might be the wrong ones, but the alternative is a poor bargain.

* For instance, a lot of controversy was raised around ten years ago when the fictional star of the television show "Murphy Brown," a single middle aged news anchor, became a single parent. The pregnancy was unplanned, and she did not love the father, who was largely a casual acquaintance. One wonders really why conservatives should not have praised her, since various women in her position might have had an abortion, especially since she was not that much of "mother" material. Such a move just would not be accepted by advertisers and others, even though millions have had abortion since Murphy Brown fictionally had her child. A similar "non-abortion," though this time the single suprisedly pregnant career woman actually made a trip to an abortion cliic, occurred on "Sex in the City." This bias against portraying abortions, which given their prevalance in fictional media would seem to be quite rare events, is upsetting. Not only is it unrealistic, it is a eye opening example of how taboo (and endangered) the choice truly is.

This area has a myriad of issues and themes to ponder, but I wish to address two other issues, namely abortion pills and partial birth abortions. Since they are kind of side issues, I decided to deal with them separately. RU-486 has been a long time coming to this country, and with the Bush administration it will probably have a troubled run again, but this abortion pill (and others like it) has been used in Europe for some time. The concept is to give more power to women (and avoid clinics targeted by protestors, practicing their First Amendment rights to make having an abortion the hardest possible) to have abortions on their own. I personally would think a single surgery would be a lot easier than the drawn out process (possibly over a day) involved by using pills. This makes the option rather troubling, though the additional privacy is a plus.