Abortion

I have positions on abortion, which will be hated by the true partisans of both sides. I do not like abortion, and would not ban it, but am in favor of some restrictions on the practice, as I will explain.

I would not ban abortion. I am all too familiar with the situation, both in the U.S. and some other countries, when the practice was illegal. Abortions did not stop, just because they were illegal, they were merely driven underground. By being driven underground, that meant they were performed by every sort of quack who was willing to take the risk. Then again, the risks for the abortionist were minimal compared to the risks for the woman.

Why did women get abortions, even though they were illegal? For much the same reasons that they get them today. Some women find themselves pregnant due to rape, quasi-rape, or incest. What do I mean by quasi-rape? Sex in which the woman was in some way, coerced, compelled, rendered unconscious, or otherwise was not genuinely consenting to sex.

Also, a young woman may find herself facing ostracision by family and friends because of an unwanted pregnancy. This may particularly be the case when the female is in early or mid-teens. It may mean the end of whatever life the person has previously known. Admittedly, unmarried pregnancy is less taboo now than it was thirty or more years ago. It started to change in the sixties, but prior to that, extramarital pregnancy was something that did not happen in ‘nice’ families.

Sometimes, you might find a young single working woman, who when she found herself pregnant, also found herself abandoned by the man who she thought was going to marry her. If you know you cannot go to your family for help, and also know you cannot support a child as an unwed mother, you may turn to abortion in desperation.

In the days when it was illegal, women did not turn to abortion lightly, but they still turned to abortion. It is easy for some to condemn – to spout platitudes about ‘the consequences of one’s actions’, to throw out adoption as an alternative. When you’ve walked a mile in the shoes of those young women, then maybe you have some right to talk – otherwise, you just don’t know.

Dr. Waldo Fielding was a gynecologist, who worked in New York City hospitals in the period before Roe vs. Wade. He wrote an article, published in the New York Times, entitled “Repairing the Damage, Before Roe”. He talked about the aftermath of illegal abortions, including women showing up in an emergency room, literally with hangars “still in place”. He talked about a woman who appeared to have a partly delivered umbilical cord, which turned out to be her intestines which had come through a hole poked in her uterus.

No, illegality did not stop abortions, but it sometimes killed or maimed the women who were so desperate as to resort to illegal abortions. I could not and cannot advocate returning to those days of horrors.

I would not advocate putting any limits on a woman’s right to abortion for the first nineteen weeks of pregnancy. Why nineteen weeks? That is the period during which it does not seem possible for the fetus to survive outside the body of the mother. In some instances, starting in the twentieth week, it is possible for a child to live. The odds are slim until after the twenty-sixth week, but still it is possible.

My position is that at that point when the fetus or child can survive outside the mother’s body, it has a right to try to do so. (As it turns out, this is quite in line with the Supreme Court decision in Roe vs Wade.) I would say that from the twentieth week, any abortion which is performed, has to be done in such a way as to give the fetus a chance to live, except where doing so would present a clear danger to the life of health of the mother, and a greater danger than the continued pregnancy would be to the average woman.

That leaves four and a half months, where the woman is free to end her pregnancy, with no limitations. If she has not chosen to do so in four and a half months, then she and her doctor need to take the potential life of the fetus into account. While the fetus has no chance to live outside the mother’s body, the mother is paramount. Once the fetus has a chance to live outside her body, it has rights which should also be preserved.

Die hard ‘pro-life’ advocates, I’m sure, will be incensed that I would allow free and unfettered access to abortions for nineteen weeks, and also that I would not ‘ban’ certain abortion methods. Die hard ‘pro-choice’ advocates, I know, will be incensed that I admit any limitation to a woman’s abortion choices.

I admit to being conflicted over the question of under-age women having access to abortion without parental consent. There is certain hypocrisy to saying that a sixteen year old female cannot get a tooth filled, or a ruptured appendix operated on without the consent of her parents, but she can get an abortion. Why is one okay, but the others not?

No. I do not want to return to the ‘bad old days’. I’d say that if an under-age female is adult enough to choose to abort, she should be adult enough to face her parents, with that knowledge. Yes, that is parental notification, not parental control, and there can be some repercussions. I know that will get the die hard ‘pro-choicers’ steamed yet again. Then again, I am not trying to kiss up to any side. I am trying to craft a policy that is as reasonable as possible, under the circumstances.