This may come as a surprise to many of you, but I’m not convinced the South Dakota ban on abortion is a good thing. Yes, I know that flies in the face of my usual traditionalist position, but I have my reasons.
A major problem I see with the abortion debate is that so often this is a black-and-white issue with very little room for grey. On one side, there are the “abortion on demand” folks who believe that a woman should be allowed to terminate a pregnancy right up to the point of delivery. Until the toes are out, it’s just tissue and not a baby. Yes, this is absurd. Abortion is NOT an alternative method of birth control and never should be.
On the other hand, there are those who feel that abortion should never be allowed (except, of course, when mom’s health is at risk). To them, there is no justification for killing a living baby. I understand this position. But I have a problem with it nonetheless. Am I advocating abortion? No. I’m just making a point that this is a VERY complicated issue and is hardly cut and dry. There is much grey in the midst of the abortion debate. Maybe it’s my medical background, but I’m somewhere in between on the abortion issue and I’ll explain why.
Suppose you or your spouse were told sometime in the second trimester that your developing fetus suffered from a severe birth defect or chromosomal abnormality. Suppose this condition was incompatible with human life, and if your baby survived to birth then he or she would not survive very long afterward. What would you do? Perhaps it’s more fair to ask what would I do. And the answer is…I don’t know, I just don’t know. I don’t think any of us know for sure until we are put into that situation. What I do know is pregnancy itself is risky even in today’s modern medical world. Will I be prepared to subject my wife to such dangers for a futile pregnancy? I don’t know. I know that some people may call this God’s Will and suggest that I rely on prayer in such situations. I agree with that, but I also think that’s getting a little close to the ‘faith healing’ concept which I don’t agree with (this is another post for another day). I also know that I’m not prepared to force some other pair of parents into making a certain decision in this circumstance based on law. Does this make me a bad Christian? I hope not. The truth is such circumstances do exist, and advances in medicine have given us the ability to diagnose them early…hasn’t this advance in knowledge and science also come from God? What we do with the results of such tests raises many more questions.
So why not allow abortion under severe restrictions? It doesn’t have to be on one extreme or the other. There is, I believe, a common ground. Here is my proposal, and I think many Americans would not have a problem with this.
Basically, abortion should be legal under two and only two circumstances: 1) In cases of rape or incest ONLY if the victim presses formal charges. If the defendant is convicted, then he is also charged and sentenced for involuntary manslaughter of a fetus. 2) Under the recommendation by 3 separate physicians that abortion is medically indicated. The exception being in an emergency which is defined as a situation that poses an immediate threat to the mother’s life, limb or eyesight. These cases would then be subject to peer review by other physician’s after the fact to ensure that the situation called for such action. ALL third trimester and partial birth abortions would be banned without exception.
To me, there is no other situation in which an abortion can be justified. Again, this may not be very conservative of me, but I feel for parents who have to endure such unique situations and I don’t judge them. And I certainly don’t feel right forcing them to make a decision based on my religious beliefs. Yes, a human life is a human life, but we withhold treatment from patients when further treatment would be futile at prolonging life. We unplug ventilators, we disconnect feeding tubes. Are the situations above any different? The question is far from simple and illustrates just how complex the abortion issue really is. Any comments are, as always, welcome.
1 comment:
Hey! Perhaps we almost agree. I'm opposed to abortions of convenience. I do think the fetus is a human being and don't think such a life should be easily quenched.
However, I'm also opposed to government intervention in matters of health. I think if someone is dying and in pain, for instance, that they ought to have the option of not continuing treatment just to endure more pain. I think end of life issues are private, in other words, and ought to be made by individuals and their loved ones.
So, while ideally I might support laws that say doctors can't perform abortions of convenience, in reality, there would arise the question of "what is an abortion of convenience?" And who's going to make that call?
I vote for the family, not the government.
So, you see, I'm somewhere queasily in between. Maybe somewhere even in the ballpark with you on this matter.
Post a Comment