The Big Picture

The abortion issue has been the cause of great disparity in the United States for decades and has contributed enormously to the apparent disunity we are currently struggling with between and within our states.

The issue seems to be intractable. But, that is only because of the specious way it has been and is presented to us.

Now, let’s consider putting the trumped up controversy to rest once and for all by having rational thinking come to the fore.

As it stands now, however, there are crusading christian fundamentalist who believe that life begins at the moment when an egg “somehow” becomes fertilized. I say “somehow” because that event seems to be isolated as a kind of mystical magical moment that miraculously materializes out of nowhere. It is also a religious belief that a zygote is an actual human being and abortion is tantamount to murder.

Some of these religious zealots actually refer to science to further their cause. They seem to be under the impression that their beliefs are unquestionably supported by scientific knowledge. But that is highly questionable, especially with respect to “God’s” involvement, even though there are scientists who have come on board the right-to-life propaganda train. And I would venture to suggest that the reasons they did so was not based on science. It was done for other reasons. Perhaps they did it to please their families or their pastors or to fit in with the particular organization they’re associated with. It is just difficult to see how the view that a zygote is a child is supported by science. It’s not even supported by common sense. (Common sense??? What’s that???)

Following in the tradition of proponents of Creation Science and Intelligent Design the current breed of so-called right-to-life advocates shamelessly display their lack of intellectual rigor and honesty. They think, for instance, that evolution science somehow supports their beliefs while, actually, it has nothing at all to say on the subject of an embryo’s status.

Indeed the right-to-life point of view was not initiated by science nor was it originally espoused as a religious belief.

The whole idea that life begins at the moment a sperm penetrates an egg was introduced by a conservative politician, Sen. John East of North Carolina, for the political purpose of creating a phantom moral high ground from which to pillory the left. The senator claimed that science supported his view that a zygote was a human being. But, for Senator East and his ilk, science, like the bible, is cherry-picked for whatever can be pressed into service so as to appear to support whatever cockeyed dogma they need to glaze over with the aura of legitimacy.

The left, on the other hand, takes the position that a woman who has an abortion is merely exercising control over her body. But, like the right, they are taking a particular moment and regarding it out of context. Actually, one can better make the case that a woman’s lack of control over her body produces unwanted pregnancies and, thus, a particular need for abortions.

So, the lines were drawn in the political sand with both sides advocating bogus positions. And we have been constantly battered with all the nonsensical arguments from the two sides for decades now with seemingly no sensible perspective in the offing with which to resolve the issue.

This is because politicians are not interested in administering to a civil society. They are interested in power. They seek total domination over the other side, it would seem, at any cost.

That is not, however, achievable in a society with free elections and is, therefore, what might be called a fool’s objective. Our politicians, then, are engaged in an exercise of futility in their quest for party dominance and squander any prospect for promoting social decorum in the process.

In a civil society our focus should not be on questionable concepts that tear a society apart. What we should focus on, whenever possible, are concepts that make sense and can be agreed on by everyone.

And here is what everyone can agree on (not necessarily want to agree on) with regard to the abortion issue;

1. When a sperm penetrates an egg we can all agree that a woman is pregnant. Period. Because that is all we really know. Whether or not a given pregnancy will go full term and produce an actual child is something we are not privy to. There is a likelihood that an actual child will be born but it is not a guaranteed certainty. Miscarriages happen all the time, a stillborn is possible and embryos can be flushed out of a woman’s body before she even knows she’s pregnant.

And this is why it is folly for abortion to be considered murder. It could not be established in a court of law, beyond a reasonable doubt, that an actual life had been taken. All we can know with absolute certainty is that a pregnancy was ended.

2. Every woman of child bearing years makes a choice every month to be pregnant or not to be pregnant. If birth control is used the choice is, of course, not to be pregnant. If there is no conscious choice to be pregnant the choice is not to be pregnant. If one chooses to leave it up to chance then the choice is to be pregnant. The choice to be pregnant or not is the same choice in regard to an egg cell or an embryo or a developing fetus.

3. If you want believe that it is not just a pregnancy but a life we’re talking about here, then, let’s put it this way. Every month a choice is made to either go ahead with a life or not. Egg cells are placed into fallopian tubes every month for one reason - producing life. To deny the sperm necessary for that to happen, no matter the method, is to deny a life, or at least a possible life, from happening. So, every month one either chooses to go ahead with a life or not. And that is the exact same choice a woman has if she finds herself with an unwanted pregnancy. She can either choose to go ahead with a life or not.

4. Abortion, of course, is not the best method for birth control. I think everyone can agree on that. So, the best way to deal with the abortion issue is to prevent unwanted pregnancies from occurring. And that is where our focus should be as a society, as well as, individually.

Now, one can refuse to agree with the civil approach to this matter. But, one cannot refute the fact that we do live in a civil society and, as such, everyone has a responsibility to promote civility however they can.

So, let’s agree to stuff the whole abortion controversy in a vacuum sealed jar forever and put it on a shelf in a museum for obsolete and groundless debates.

Now, there are those who are in favor of birth control, as in contraception, but are against abortion.

Apparently they make a distinction between an egg cell and a zygote. Perhaps they view contraception as being ok because an egg cell merely represents a potential life and we can’t be sure that it would be successfully fertilized and actually go on to produce a child? However, much the same can be said of a zygote or embryo or fetus - can’t be sure it will successfully gestate and actually go on to produce a child.

At what point in the reproductive process can we really say with absolute certainty that there is an actual child in evidence? That would be at birth.

If you say birth control is ok but abortion is wrong it’s a contradiction because abortion is a method of birth control.

If you want to equate contraception with abortion then you would be obligated to attempt to become pregnant whenever possible.

Birth control, that is, interfering with the reproductive process at whatever juncture, is a common, universal and necessary practice.

And on a final note, a law against abortion could be challenged on constitutional grounds because it would not apply to all women equally. In theory, of course, it would, but not in reality. Women who could afford to would be able to travel elsewhere to have an abortion in a medical facility under the auspices of a licensed physician. Other women who could not afford such a trip would be at the mercy of the proverbial “back alley butchers” or have to resort to using coat hangers on themselves in order to remedy their desperate situation. That is how it was in the days before Roe v Wade when abortion was against the law. To saddle only a certain class of women with the burden of such a draconian law while in effect giving other women a free pass is certainly unconscionable and should certainly be unconstitutional.