Making Abortion Obsolete

     As long as we’re on the subject of abortion---an issue that seems to polarize but never gets settled.  Perhaps we can think outside the box and arrive at a more amicable solution rather than the two sides trying to muscle a direction that will only make the other side incensed?

     Why must the argument be framed in extremes?  One extreme being dictated by the individual’s freedom or control over one’s reproductive system and perceived legal rights, the other says there’s a higher authority to answer to and it’s a sin which transcends the individual’s rights. 

     How about a different approach to the abortion question?  How about we don’t bother to define when life commences and we don’t make it an issue of control?

     Just because we have the technical ability to perform an abortion, doesn’t mean we should; anymore than because we have guns, we should use them at will. But the rights issue seems to be one of control.  “How dare someone legislate what a woman can do with her body”.  Remove the issue of an “unwanted” pregnancy, and you remove the issue of control.  It becomes moot.  So how do we do that?

     On one hand, those that argue that one is killing a life therefore no termination should be allowed, also paint an almost impossible situation if prevention of that creation is not allowed. But we know shit happens.  Behavior contrary to nature becomes cultish and varies among different societies.  Therefore to impose one culture or a set of “beliefs” on another is arbitrary.  This is a manmade constraint vs. nature’s urges and rhythms which will endeavor to prevail; sex urges are a Human Universal. Like building houses in a floodplain; you have success some of the time, but in the long run, you’re shoveling shit against the tide.  How do you think that usually works out?

     Any reason to prevent conception is not unreasonable considering the consequence for failure to do so is another life.  But according to the church’s followers, abstinence, being a form of contraception, is denial of “god’s” will. So there’s a conundrum here. The idea that contraception is forbidden because it’s against gods will is as preposterous as saying teens should be fucking like bunnies because that was what he intended when he gave them the capability of reproducing.  These debates are contrived, mental masturbation, and are endless.  These beliefs are also created as prerequisites by those that share a common cult---not necessarily shared amongst the world’s nonmembers of the group. 

     If one group protests assisting in the care of unwanted children, (welfare, Medicare, assistance programs etc) wouldn’t it behoove that group to help prevent the occurrence which will cost a lot less than paying for the care after pregnancy and delivery?  Think beyond the ideology (which is manmade) and pick the lesser of the conflicting policies.  Pay to prevent, or pay for the results of not preventing?  But saying no help or education before or after is not exactly realistic unless you get jollies from watching people’s predicaments.  And in a democratic society, the majority of voters should prevail.

     So what we’re talking here is sex education, prevention of unwanted pregnancies and transmission of diseases, decreased expenses incurred by the state in support of these children.  We’re not talking abortions; we’re talking the elimination of the necessity for abortions or expenses if the child is carried to term.

     If education and methods are widely available to stop the union of the egg and sperm, chances will be diminished for the necessity of abortions and the expenses.  Let’s face it, behaviors contrary to nature are elective; just the way self flogging is performed by some members of the clergy.  Anybody can believe whatever they want.  But to inflict behavior on others, founded on religion, is not what the founding fathers of this country had in mind.

     On the other side, nature is a beautiful thing.  We should be in awe of it for its ability to provide for all the living things in its domain. Conception is not the easiest thing.  Many couples cannot conceive for multiple reasons. This being the case, we should respect the experience.  But it goes deeper than that.  What could be the reasons for a mother to not want a pregnancy; unmarried, lack of support, inconvenience, guilt? These are transient conditions of society when compared to nature’s imperatives.

     So suppose for a moment, that every method and means were available for contraception.  Would it be wrong to therefore conclude that the incidence of unwanted pregnancies, hence, potential abortions, would decrease?  Forget sin for the moment.  Remember, with or without preventative measures, these conceptions become candidates for abortion.  Which scenario is the lesser of the evils; to help prevent, or to abort?

     Perhaps the method of control wasn’t 100% effective.  No method is.  Yes abstinence might be, but that’s not birth control, that’s just not having sex.  Not reasonable considering man is hardwired by nature to enjoy the experience---our "equipment" is not just for procreating.  Otherwise, nature would have some sort of device that in essence says---“do not use unless you want children.”  And if that were the case, you mean these tools and tunnels for making babies would only be used a handful of times in the individual’s life?  And only people who get married are allowed to have sex?  C’mon. Don’t forget our human universals.   Even animals experience sex for pleasure.  Man, only one step above on the food chain, should therefore not be denied when, according to scientific studies, there are many similarities between man and animals.  Maybe they’re better off not having brains as advanced as ours.  Maybe we think too much.  We had brains so we could deny ourselves what animals find natural?  C’mon again.  People can believe in cultish behaviors, but it’s unrealistic to enforce it on others.

     Perhaps after using contraception measures, a small number of “accidents” happen.  Give nature a break and kudos for perseverance.  But it’s not a sin.  It’s nature.  It’s not like taking a gun and murdering someone.  Nature snuck one in.  Just like after volcanic ash covers a countryside, life resumes.  But that doesn’t mean you have to keep the child.  There are plenty of couples who can’t conceive.  They can adopt.  Is it better to live with the guilt of possibly terminating a life form, perhaps one that could have made a world shaking discovery, or knowing that it was an honest mistake against the powerful forces of nature and you can contribute to the happiness of others?  For the “crime” of lax diligence relating to contraception, could you not be “inconvenienced” for 9 months?  Better than going to jail or living with the guilt (see # 29 here).  As a matter of fact, instead of the child becoming a ward of the state requiring greater expenses, the religious community, out of their “giving” hearts, will assist in placing the child in a loving home.  Remember, there’s no sin in permitting nature to perform what it is capable of doing.  But I would say it’s irresponsible to not make efforts at preventing conception.  Children should not be considered unwanted; particularly if contraception was not used.  Maybe they were just unthought-of in the heat of the moment, or ill advised as to the potential results from unprotected sex.  Isn’t it time to equip our children to the ways of real life---not belief in some irrational dogma for membership in a group?

     Sex is a Human Universal.  Failing to manage the human reproductive system is like believing it’s ok to build houses in a flood zone.  People who deny the implication of practical solutions in the name of mindless, ideological dogma, are simply programmed robots.  It also means morning after pills after rape and special circumstances when a mother’s life is threatened.  Human events are not an exact science that can always be accounted for; particularly with indiscriminate dogma.

     Which is the greater “evil”?  The one that terminates a pregnancy, or the one that prevents a pregnancy; just the way we brush our teeth to prevent tooth decay which are god’s little creations too; we use prophylactics or other methods to prevent pregnancies.  If you say they’re both the same then that’s a problem man created in his interpretation of some “scriptures” that were written before man had better understanding of his existence.  But if you say termination of a natural act is worse---I’m with you.  Just as you can’t terminate nature’s union after it emerges from the birth canal, the same should apply when it unites and attaches itself to the uterus.  It’s nature’s gift.

     But why should we consider something that happens in nature, something that is planned by nature as evil?  Where did that come from and is it universal or just to a particular sect? 

     It’s not about controlling someone’s reproductive system.  It’s about respect for the laws of nature; the same as giving a loaded gun to a six year old.  We’re talking about increased education on prevention, and acceptance of accidents.  We make available all the awareness and tools for contraception, a man and a woman makes every effort to address the consequences beforehand.  And if failure occurs, the pregnancy is carried to term and put up for adoption if the parents opt out. No issue of control, no abortion.  No questions asked.

                                             No Flies!