Abortion

The Question

Recently I received this question from Askfriend, "What's your opinion about abortion?"

My answer? "This issue is loaded with ten tons of dynamite and I'd rather crawl under my bed and wait for you to go away than answer you in public, even if the readership is small."

I'm half joking, but conflict-avoidance is a deeply ingrained habit and I've left too much of myself on that altar. It's time to break through fear and silence. After all, whether I'm right or wrong, how will I learn anything if I do not pick somewhere for a first stand?

Why Am I Afraid To Answer?

For years I diced up my online persona into different facets that were acceptable to the unique audiences I had on Facebook and Tumblr.

On Facebook, I connected with people I knew in real life. These were people who attended the church I grew up in, family members, and high school or college friends. I would post about my writing process, crafts and cooking ventures, and stories about what God was doing in my life. On Facebook, I was not afraid to talk about the strange connections or God-shaped coincidences that happened to in my life. On Facebook, I could ask for prayer.

Tumblr was where I drew a following of people who didn't know me, but liked what I wrote or reposted from others. On Tumblr, introspection on my mental illness, its pitfalls, and my journey was lauded and garnered all kinds of support. My doubts and angry questions about God were embraced. On Tumblr I wrote about the parts of my Christian beliefs that I wanted to challenge, knowing full well these questions themselves would not be as challenged on Tumblr. Occasionally I wrote about my faith and the good in it, but couched in far more careful terms than I would write for the other audience.

Both facets I presented are true, but I offered each only to the community that would most accept it. On my new blog, I am starting over. I am attempting to pull myself together into a unified presentation. It is a terrifying prospect because both sides think they know what I will say and they don't.  Not really. I'm sure that sometimes, perhaps even today, I will say things that get me damned by both communities. That idea is frightening.

But I can't hold the two halves apart anymore. So, Askfriend, I thank you for this question. This is scary and difficult, but necessary.

Let's break this down.

Exploring My Views

The purpose of this section is to explore my views and figure out how I would confront the question of abortion in my own life. In this section, I am not considering abortion as it pertains to anyone else, just to me.

I'll begin by stating a personal limitation: I won't even try to wade into the science of the matter. Abortion is not my personal battleground or mission field and I do not have the capacity to absorb the kind of information I would need in order to expertly bandy the data around. At this point in time, I'm not sure there is a definitive scientific answer to the apparent core question, "When does life begin?" There are plenty of people who hurl data on both sides, but have we worked out an objective truth? A definitive answer? Any amount of argument-ending evidence? Well, the majority is still passionately arguing this one, so I'll take that as a "No."

So then, if I reject the idea that we know with assurance when life begins, that leaves me with this conundrum: when is abortion "excising tissue" and when is abortion killing a person? If I truly believe that God created each of us as a living work of glory and placed a unique, immortal soul in each body, then the stakes of this question terrify me. By the weight of these stakes, I am compelled to err on the side of caution. If that is the case, I have to draw the line at conception. Therefore, if I am unwilling to have a child, then conception is the stage at which the process must be stopped. So I hold it that if I perform an abortion at any point, then I am killing a person.

On a personal note, Sergey and I decided, after lengthy discussions, that we did not want children and that this decision was unlikely to change. Once we reached this conclusion, I opted for surgical sterilization. This is how I have tried to live out what I say.

Next, I'll address some situations that are commonly said to require abortion, as if discussion is not warranted. I will set myself in front of each and lay out what I hope my choice would be, taking my ideals into account.

Medical Emergency. If my life was at stake and performing an abortion was the only way to keep me from dying, I believe I would accept an abortion. In such situations, it's my understanding that the mother and child have a high chance of dying together if the abortion does not proceed. If one of them can continue to live, why not save at least one instead of losing two? Even so, I find it likely that I would wrestle with guilt and grief for a long time after.

Rape/Incest. Perhaps I am ignorant, but I count these as similar, as it seems that the effects on a person are more alike than not. For many years I had an obsessive fear of rape, and it was a topic I processed often in my early stories. I feared the feelings of helplessness and pervasive sense of violation I heard about, as well as the hardening and shattering of one's self. So now I take the situation and put myself in these shoes.

The first thing I have to figure out is if I still believe in the God I've always claimed to serve. If I do, then by my previous trail of thought, I am faced with the understanding that I am carrying a person in my body. A person who did nothing wrong to me and did not ask for the circumstances of their conception. In addition, I know the character of the God I serve. I know my God is one who brings great healing out of barren wastes and ash, and if I can take hold of this, I open myself up to His touch in this situation. I believe that, with this in mind, I might find hope and healing raising this child. I hope that I would be strong enough to hold to this ideal, because it seems to me the clearest path to healing and growth.

Sergey and I also discussed the option of giving a child up for adoption. As previously mentioned, we've already decided that we don't want to be parents, for many reasons. While I am unwilling to put a child through the meat grinder that is the US foster care system, couples can be interviewed and direct adoptions can be arranged. That is another route we would consider, though I suspect I might always feel like something is missing from me if I chose this route.

Deformity and Disability. This issue is difficult and messy. It spawns all kinds of offshoot questions in my brain that I can't begin to answer. Offshoot questions like, "If the person born with the deformity or disability could look back on their life, would they thank you or curse you for bearing them?" You may have a visceral answer readied for that, but no matter how strongly you feel that, the answer is going to be different depending on each person and their life circumstances. Some would be legitimately thankful no matter what and some would curse the day they were born. Some would change their minds partway through.

Other questions arise when looking at someone trapped in an unresponsive body, questions like, "Is just breathing and eating and sleeping life, or is there a quality of life factor to consider, and what kind of quality of life does this person have a shot at? Do they want this to stop, or do they want to keep trying? Do they wish they'd never lived if it's always like this?" Again, as visceral an answer as you may have, someone else has the opposite response.

These are questions I do not know how to answer, much like "When does life begin?" So once again I have to reach for my core beliefs about life and the sort of God I serve and conclude that I am not willing to kill someone who has done nothing to me--who is as innocent as it is possible to be in this world--because of things beyond their control. I have also seen God walk people through their lives with disability, growing them far beyond any ability cap predicted by experts. I can't claim this happens every time, but I have seen it happen. I hope, then, that I would bear a child diagnosed with disabilities to term. I hope that I would also lean heavily on God for help to love and guide this new person.

This concludes the exploration of how I would face the issue of abortion in my life.

Roe V Wade, Abortion Aside

The second part that I'd like to work through is a bit of a tangent, but it's twined so thoroughly with the topic of abortion that I think it is worth addressing. As I understand it, the common conception of the Supreme Court case Roe v. Wade is that it is "about legalizing abortion." I have not done intensive reading about Roe v. Wade, but I have read Justice Scalia's dissent on related abortion cases regarding Roe v. Wade's wider effects. I've also listened to several discussions about the case and the effects it had on our society.

For a moment, I ask you to set aside the word "abortion" and all arguments about abortion itself. My loose understanding of our rights as voters is that, before this infamous case, it was far more common to argue for amendments in the US when one thought the Constitution did not cover enough ground. It is difficult to pass an amendment, but together we passed 27 of them. Amendments were passed (and sometimes repealed) through intense persuasion and argumentation. We the voters--or our elected representatives--had to find enough common ground to amend the Constitution. I'd wager this process united us more often than not. This process was our responsibility and our right. At least, it was our responsibility until the Supreme Court called the Constitution a "living document" and began re-interpreting it to match the ethics of the judicial majority. This took the process out of our hands entirely, circumventing the amendment process as the Justices pencilled in additions to the Constitution that were never covered or intended.

I find this to be disturbing and dangerous. For a moment, let's assume that the ethically correct decision was made in Roe v. Wade, and that mandating abortion as a right guaranteed by the Constitution was such a moral imperative that it superseded our right to go through the standard process. In that case, right and wrong, law and order depend, not on what we collectively agree to submit to, but the whims of the changing Justices at the bench.

Do their views align with mine? Wonderful! That means that they are doing God's work on earth and enforcing The Good on all because I couldn't possibly be wrong. Wait, they just ruled WHAT? BASTARD HERETICS, BURN THEM AT THE STAKE! WHO GAVE THEM THE RIGHT TO--

See, the danger is that this court that advocated for the same thing I was so passionate about could easily decide, for dubiously defined reasons, that the Constitution now finds and protects rights that would appall any sane person. The problem is, at some point the Supreme Court nominated itself to be a seat of power and legislation instead of an interpreter of the legislation that we the people accepted, and the Justices who sit in the seat of power are few and they change. Benevolent dictators--with or without robes--are on your side until they are not.

Abortion aside, Roe V. Wade was one of the many cases decided in a way that moved us a step further from our democratic ideals and a step closer to government tyranny. As far as I understand it, the recent Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organization did not "ban abortion" but instead returned the issue to the state level voting. This once again allows us to decide, locally and through argument and persuasion, what is best, and that seems a step closer to the heart of our country's ideals.

Freakonomics

Freakonomics by Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner is a book that explores micro-economics in ways that really make you think about where peoples' incentives lie. In Chapter 4, "Where Have All The Criminals Gone?" the writers draw a conclusion disturbing enough that it earned them enemies on both sides of the abortion debate.

Here is my basic understanding of their conclusion. In the 50's, 60's, and 70's, a crime wave rolled through America with ever-increasing steam. Then, in the 90's and seemingly out of nowhere, the crime rate began to plummet. Levitt and Dubner look into the major explanations that were offered--strong economy, increased reliance on prisons, increased use of capital punishment, increased number of police and innovative policing strategies, tougher gun laws, changes in the drug markets, the aging of the population--and systematically debunk the notion that any of these were major contributors to the drop in crime.

In 1973, Roe v Wade was decided and abortion became a right in every state at once. Almost 20 years later, crime rates plunged. This effect was seen even in the states that adopted legalized abortion before Roe v Wade, as their crime rates dropped sooner than the rest of the country. For the specific data, I'd encourage you to read the chapter, but Levitt and Dubner postulate that the aborted portion of that generation accounts for the sudden drop-off in a crime wave that previously showed no signs of slowing.

"Perhaps the most dramatic effect of legalized abortion, however, and one that would take years to reveal itself, was its impact on crime. In the early 1990s, just as the first cohort of children born after Roe v Wade was hitting its late teens--the years during which most young men enter their criminal prime--the rate of crime began to fall. What this cohort was missing, of course, were the children who stood the greatest chance of becoming criminals, and the crime rate continued to fall as an entire generation came of age minus the children whose mothers had not wanted to bring a child into the world. Legalized abortion led to less unwantedness. Unwantedness leads to high crime. Legalized abortion, therefore, led to less crime."

I have impossible-to-answer and even unfair questions, but I wonder them anyway. Questions like, "If a soul, prior to being born, was warned that it would cause harm and devastation to everyone in reach in its life, would it beg God for the shortest lifespan possible? Or for no lifespan?" I wonder things like, "Does a person who has spent their time building as much good into life as they are capable of have less rights than a person who takes their life without a thought?" I end up thinking that a child shouldn't have to be born to parents who do not want them and will resent their existence. As much as I wish it were otherwise, I have to acknowledge that not every child with this kind of life gets it turned around by God. I wonder, short of that sort of intervention, if that life is worth living.

The Sanger Angle

My rough knowledge of Margaret Sanger's life work is that she founded Planned Parenthood, the largest provider of clinical abortions in the US. It is also my understanding that she did this in (large?) part to curtail the amount of black children born in the US. Recently, in recognition of this unpleasant factoid, Planned Parenthood has been removing Sanger's name from places of honor and distancing themselves from her views.

I am disturbed. I understand the foundation of an organization--or country or any other institution--is not necessarily related to what it is today, but has that foundation really changed? My next questions would be, "What percent of the black or hispanic community does Planned Parenthood 'serve' as opposed to the white community?" Not that it bars anyone from coming through its doors, but... how do I even express this?

In my mind, I see Planned Parenthood as an entity holding out its hands. It says, "Give me your problem. You don't want it, and neither do I. I'll get rid of it for you, and we will both benefit." Except that the benefit for Planned Parenthood, as per Sanger's ideals, is that minorities slowly vanish. The benefit for the woman is short term. The benefit for Planned Parenthood is forever.

It is not as if this is something being forced on a woman, after all the woman enters the facility with her own two feet and often past a line of protestors. But I look at the roots of Planned Parenthood and I am disturbed by the initial intentions. I wonder if those intentions are still in play, still attempting to curtail the amount of children born in minority communities. I wonder why this question isn't discussed more often.

Three read-throughs of Basic Economics and Thomas Sowell would have me check myself, here, and remember that it is unwise for third parties--in this case, myself or government--to decide the right and wrong of a transaction entered into by two consenting parties who desire the transaction. Fair enough, but then, can the Sanger angle at least be a point of discussion we all have as we, perhaps, vote on this issue on a more local level?

Conclusion

What is my opinion about abortion?

Metaphorically and literally, it's a horrible, bloody mess. I believe that abortion at any stage kills a person. I am no longer sure that is always wrong. I definitely don't have enough footing to tell a woman seeking one that she is out of line. I believe, strongly, that we should be allowed to vote on this at a more local level, at least state by state if not city by city.

I am not trying to persuade anyone. I am not saying that I shall die, immovable, on this hill. I am not even saying that all these fragments support each other, in fact I acknowledge that some are contradictory and I have yet to reconcile them. I am merely taking the disparate fragments that inform my opinion, dragging them together, and presenting them.

This is where I stand, saddened and disturbed, at this point in time.

"I don't know."

This blog was composed using essay.app