There are partners of Indy Car drivers at the Indianapolis Motor Speedway today wearing shirts that say "NOT Your Body, NOT Your Choice". When we look at the abortion debate one of the things that often is said by the people who don't want to have abortion legal at all is that the embryo or fetus is not the woman's body. They argue that it is a separate human being and thus has the right to live, even if that means a woman must carry it to term. Recent so-called Heart Beat Bills have this at their center. They do not exclude the prohibition even in the case of rape or incest. In some cases it could mean a woman who miscarries has to prove she didn't cause it. This clearly suggests that the life of the unborn developing embryo or fetus is worth more than the comfort of the woman who carries it, even if that is the result of a non-consensual act. Despite what some lawmaker said the other day rape is never consensual. There are provisions for the life of the mother, but that seems to be a difficult thing to adjudicate if someone like a zealous DA decides that he or she are going to second guess a doctor.
So we have a bit of an issue for me. Where do we draw the line on this? Let's take the argument that the fetus is a separate human who is entitled to life, thus the woman who is carrying it must continue to do so, even if against her will, and may put her health at risk though not immediately, for the purpose of the other life. This would be true if the sex act that produced the fetus was consensual or not.
So let's look at a person whose kidneys have stop functioning. Chances are you know someone in this situation or someone who has a family member. They need a transplant as dialysis is no longer working. You are a young, healthy person, who has two kidneys and you match perfectly with the person in need. You only need one kidney to survive so the right thing to do is to give your kidney to that person so they can live. Many people do this, even for strangers and it is a wonderful thing as a life is saved. But you are reluctant to give up a kidney. What might happen in the future? It involves surgery, that will cost you time at work, maybe a promotion. You had a trip to Europe planned and now it is on hold if you save this person. Can the government compel you to put your life on hold to save the life of another person? If not then why should a woman, pregnant, have to do the same? You could argue she is responsible for getting pregnant but there are many factors that excuse her from the responsibility. Rape and incest are the most common and recent laws don't seem to care about that. But there is also a partner who removes a condom without telling the woman. Failed birth control, be that pills, IUD or other form. Failed sterilization method which sometimes happens with vasectomies. Why should the life of the fetus be more important than the life of someone needing a kidney?
That is the real issue here. We can debate about when abortion is appropriate or not. I have never felt we should view abortion as a simple means of birth control. But as a man I don't think that I should have the right to tell a woman what to do with her body. I do think that I have a responsibility to speak out on what I think might benefit us all.
We can have fewer abortions if we approached teaching about sexuality with the importance and dignity it deserves. I believe in comprehensive sexuality education, easy access to birth control and education on how it works, and a sense of body responsibility which includes helping both young woman and men understand consent. We know this by studies that a good long-term sexuality education program, based on facts and reality, can delay first intercourse, help young men and women act responsibility when they do have sex, and can make the idea of abortion less important and necessary. If only we would try it.
But in the end the issue is still who can tell you that you must save a life? An 11 year old girl, who was raped by her father, pregnant and scared should be able to terminate that pregnancy using the same moral judgement that allows a 23 year old man, healthy and strong, to ignore the call to donate a kidney, or part of a liver or even bone marrow (which he will grow back) or blood for that matter. If you demonize one, you must be ready to demonize the other. And if you do that, I have to ask, when can we come over to get your kidney?
So we have a bit of an issue for me. Where do we draw the line on this? Let's take the argument that the fetus is a separate human who is entitled to life, thus the woman who is carrying it must continue to do so, even if against her will, and may put her health at risk though not immediately, for the purpose of the other life. This would be true if the sex act that produced the fetus was consensual or not.
So let's look at a person whose kidneys have stop functioning. Chances are you know someone in this situation or someone who has a family member. They need a transplant as dialysis is no longer working. You are a young, healthy person, who has two kidneys and you match perfectly with the person in need. You only need one kidney to survive so the right thing to do is to give your kidney to that person so they can live. Many people do this, even for strangers and it is a wonderful thing as a life is saved. But you are reluctant to give up a kidney. What might happen in the future? It involves surgery, that will cost you time at work, maybe a promotion. You had a trip to Europe planned and now it is on hold if you save this person. Can the government compel you to put your life on hold to save the life of another person? If not then why should a woman, pregnant, have to do the same? You could argue she is responsible for getting pregnant but there are many factors that excuse her from the responsibility. Rape and incest are the most common and recent laws don't seem to care about that. But there is also a partner who removes a condom without telling the woman. Failed birth control, be that pills, IUD or other form. Failed sterilization method which sometimes happens with vasectomies. Why should the life of the fetus be more important than the life of someone needing a kidney?
That is the real issue here. We can debate about when abortion is appropriate or not. I have never felt we should view abortion as a simple means of birth control. But as a man I don't think that I should have the right to tell a woman what to do with her body. I do think that I have a responsibility to speak out on what I think might benefit us all.
We can have fewer abortions if we approached teaching about sexuality with the importance and dignity it deserves. I believe in comprehensive sexuality education, easy access to birth control and education on how it works, and a sense of body responsibility which includes helping both young woman and men understand consent. We know this by studies that a good long-term sexuality education program, based on facts and reality, can delay first intercourse, help young men and women act responsibility when they do have sex, and can make the idea of abortion less important and necessary. If only we would try it.
But in the end the issue is still who can tell you that you must save a life? An 11 year old girl, who was raped by her father, pregnant and scared should be able to terminate that pregnancy using the same moral judgement that allows a 23 year old man, healthy and strong, to ignore the call to donate a kidney, or part of a liver or even bone marrow (which he will grow back) or blood for that matter. If you demonize one, you must be ready to demonize the other. And if you do that, I have to ask, when can we come over to get your kidney?
No comments:
Post a Comment