Pro-Life v. Pro-Choice

So first of all, I apologize for not writing in some time. Starting up school again has altered my priorities. Now since I am approaching the 4th week of classes, I feel inclined to write again :) It has nothing to do with my 6 page paper due for 1/3rd of my mark in one class, a quiz in another and a midterm worth 25% of my mark in yet another... Yes, I love procrastination, guilty as charged. However I digress, on to the task at hand which today is Abortion.

Last week I had the express displeasure of seeing exceptionally graphic images of aborted fetuses displayed on University campus which is why this is top of mind. Now keeping in line with my outlook that perspective is everything, I attempted to resolve myself with the Pro-Life stance by setting aside my personal views and morals. My hopes were that by trying to put myself in their shoes I could gain a better perspective to enlarge my knowledge base and at the very least have a greater understanding (note understanding does not equal agreement) of their views. However I was denied even a minimalist level of understanding because of what I see as a fundamental flaw in what they desire.

Since this is a touchy subject, I would like to preface the meat of my argument with a request for clarifications on any points, or assumptions, I have made about either the Pro-Life viewpoint, or the Pro-Choice viewpoint. I will also restrict my comments to a very confined aspect of these large issues as I see this aspect as both irresolvable and critical to even attempt to understand a Pro-Life viewpoint. If there is resolution to the problem I present, I would certainly appreciate a more enlightened viewpoint and as such welcome any discussion on this. While I recognize that "God" has a place in many people's lives, I also understand that everyone's interpretation of God is personal and not necessarily subject to the laws of basic logic; as such I will attempt to present this fundamental flaw absent of morals or religion with a one largely uncontroversial exception.

Ok now that I have laid out the framework, let me proceed. Pro-Life asserts that life begins at conception and that any abortion at anytime is murder. Science largely backs this viewpoint up if you accept that life does not require anything more than the miracle of cells dividing. So if we proceed on this basis that abortion at any time is murder and should be outlawed similarly to how any forms of contraception were outlawed in the late 1800's, then we are presented with one massive problem.

What about the case of rape that results in pregnancy? How does the Pro-Life supporter deal with this situation? I find it hard to believe that anyone regardless of religion or moral thought processes (short rapists of the worst sort) would insist that a victim of rape be required to carry the pregnancy to full term, give birth, and put the baby up for adoption. Since there is required this obvious exception to the law Pro-Life people would like to have, how would they then define rape? Violent rape? Date Rape? Spousal Rape? Incest? The rape of a child? The list goes on, and then how do we determine if someone was subjected to the wide and varied forms of rape? Conviction takes too long, in some cases the would be abortion could be entering kindergarten and I don't think aborting at that time would provide any help to the victim of the rape. So *IF* someone is raped, they get an immediate abortion, and since we cannot wait for convictions, or a third parties determination if in fact rape occurred, we then need to modify the law to say that if any woman is pregnant as a result of anything they call rape then they get an abortion if they desire.

So with such a clause in legislation that prevents an abortion by choice, there is nothing stopping any woman that so desires to say that she was raped, cannot identify the attacker, washed away evidence, and delayed notifying police because of shame, thus obtaining her abortion via legal means. Since this allows any woman to decide to have an abortion by using the rape clause, why have a law banning abortion in the first place? It has no effect, no enforceability, no reason. Regardless of any other argument, it is impossible to reconcile this problem without further victimizing victims of rape, and since any sane person understands that continuing to victimize a victim of rape is absolutely not an option, then why do we continue to have this issue pop up?

So since under the legislation that would ban abortion, this rape clause is an absolute requirement, and that any form of that rape clause invalidates the legislation in question, then it seems appropriate to just let the issue die (pardon the pun).

In my experience Pro-Life supporters are predominantly members of right-wing religious groups, or have similar ideals that do not mesh with mainstream society. While you are welcome to have your own policies and "laws" internal to your group (freedom of religion), the rest of us who do not share your views have the right to not be subjected to the laws of a religion or group that we do not affiliate with. This is the same concept behind same-sex marriage. While I understand many religions do not condone same-sex marriage; they do not, and should not, be able to force society as a whole to condemn such marriages as well. Marriage is a legal term that is applied in a non-religious or moral context and so trying to govern the use of that term with religious or moral imperatives is fundamentally flawed.

I do not go into your Sunday services, or your home, or your legal documents, and force my own views on you. What you do in these situations has nothing to do with me, and as such I have no business trying to force my views on you, likewise those who fight against extending equal rights to all need to stop trying to force their views upon others in the form of secular laws.

If any Pro-Life supporters wish to respond to this and counter this basic argument against banning abortion, I welcome a religion free discussion on the matter. Absence of any response, I will rightfully assume that there is no counter to this fundamental problem and that Abortion is an inalienable right of every woman on this planet and will remain as such until science can remove the fetus from the pregnant woman and bring them to term in an incubator of some sort. Of course this would present other problems, but that is separate and distinct from forcing a woman to incubate a child because of biologic circumstances she may or may not have had a choice over.

Now, having said all that, education is something to be treasured, and as such I fully support people providing education to their varying viewpoints, but it needs to be done in a voluntary manner, not in an illegal display in the middle of a University campus. I do however commend the University of Calgary in the manner in which they dealt with the illegal display. It was mature, responsible, and respected the dignity of all involved.