There isn’t an issue more divisive than abortion. Either you want to defend the liberty of the unborn or you want to to defend the liberty of women. Unfortunately, it seems like you can’t defend both. In a nation that defines itself by offering liberty to all it’s citizens (current administration aside), a legal stance that deprives one of the two groups of liberty is institutionalizing the removal of liberty from one of those parties. Which is to say, no matter which side “wins”. liberty loses. When liberty loses, America loses. None of us is on board with America losing, so we pick a side and call it the “right” one and once we’re all on-board peace is restored. That isn’t ever going to work for everyone.

Most politicians firmly pick a side to energize that segment of voters and secure a ‘base’ for election and re-election. This is usually (90%) the rationale of the politician. Their first concern is election. If they’re not in public office they can’t do what they perceive as ‘good’ for their constituents. If they have to espouse issues they haven’t thought through or don’t care about or otherwise compromise their integrity to get elected, then they will. Otherwise they’ll have done no ‘good’. So they take waffling stances and the problem remains forever. Not good, not good. So I will go ahead and take a firm stance since I have given it quite a bit of thought and I don’t approve of the lawyerspeak question dodging of politicians. Although I will say upfront that I have some bias considering I am in fact male. My body doesn’t have to deal with the consequences one way or the other.

Let’s break it down rationally, shall we? Abortion is the removal of an unwanted pregnancy by a doctor. This is often described as “unnatural”. Well, you’re not wrong (sort of). Anything humans do is considered ‘artificial’. We do these new things not found regularly in nature through merit of reason and intelligence not found in the rest of the animal kingdom. Before the technology to perform abortions with minimal risk to the woman came about, abortion was much rarer and much, much more dangerous. But in a way, as humans are a product of nature, literally everything we do and discover is in fact “natural”. No matter what planet you’re on or evolutionary path is taken to reach intelligence, light still moves the same speed. Which is to say that the universe operates on it’s own principles and we’re the natural result of infinite tiny events all interacting with each other based on an underlying mechanism that define the mechanisms of our universe. Artificial, is therefore natural. But that doesn’t give us an ‘answer’. How then, as a society, should we treat the (un)natural act of abortion?

We’re at odds about abortion for a slew of reasons. Most common in the US is religion in the defense of the child and feminism in defense of the women (vast generalization there’s countless reasons). In many faiths, the spirit of the child is born at conception and removal is murder. However many, many women don’t follow faith and don’t want faith intertwined with our government. In America, we are free to pursue faith (or not). If your faith doesn’t want you to get an abortion, don’t get one. It’s fairly simple. But what about the rest?

To be frank, it’s really not the government’s problem, and you shouldn’t make it one. The government recognizes any person born in the US to be a citizen. At that point all it’s laws apply. You don’t want *any* government EVER being in the position of defining when a person is a person. First, second, twenty-third trimester, whatever, you don’t want the government in the position of defining the cut-off for human rights. Because you don’t want human rights in any way, shape, or form defined by a legislature that changes every four years. You never know when they’ll make it harder to be legally human. Slippery slope, perhaps, but one we can avoid. So let’s avoid it. What is provided by the government? What is provided in the laws that pre-date abortion? Citizen at birth. What constitutes birth? Separation from the mother. Let’s go ahead and buff the legal definition of “birth” to be ‘post-separation viable‘. This is something that we can and should go ahead and legislate. It is something both sides can agree on as the new bedrock for abortion laws, as opposed to just ‘citizen at birth‘. In 1000 years, as technology improves, ending pregnancies the day after conception could instead lead to un(natural) gestation pods for the unwanted fetus allowing it a full life. Then we’ll have saved all the babies! (Hooray) This seems like a fairly safe definition (from abuse by the government) that increases protections to the unborn as time and technology go on. Now with this new rule in place, if you want more partially formed babies to reach adulthood you can study medical research instead of burning down clinics. Seems like a much more productive outlet to me, anyway.

Now, if you’re a religious person this might be a wholly unacceptable stance for me to be taking. Sorry, but it’s impossible to please everyone and here’s where it gets tricky to explain. So let’s go through the rationale: The government isn’t a religious institution and you’re trying to put your religious rules into law. This conflicts with the Constitution and the separation of church and state. We don’t tolerate Sharia law superseding our national laws, so what gives Christianity the right? If you want to lock down abortion in your religious community with strongly worded condemnations (no force), that’s allowed in America. Freedom of speech and religion. If you want to lock down everyone else with laws defended by law enforcement? Yeah, that’s less freedom for everyone you’re forcing your values on. America is a land of freedoms, remember? You can stand outside clinics and explain how would-be aborters are committing infanticide. Freedom of speech. You can’t go at them with pitchforks when they walk past. That’s assault. You also can’t go at them with legislative pitchforks. That’s tyranny; And unconstitutional. I get that you want to defend the kid. That’s great, you’re a good person. Thing is, it’s not your kid. It’s not your body. You have zero right to do that. Similarly, the government has zero right to do that. Given the choice between legal and illegal, the government should ALWAYS err on the side of legal. Everything that is illegal is a restriction of a freedom. In America we voluntarily surrender the freedom to murder others so that the would-be murdered are guaranteed the freedom to keep living. This more or less is (theoretically) the rationale that in some way, shape, or form extends out to all laws. America defines our society by what we are free to do and not free to do without repercussion. The law lays out what isn’t allowed, and law enforcement is simply the punitive repercussion for breaking those rules. If we want different rules, or improved rules, we elect officials to champion those positions. This is more or less what has gotten us to this crossroad, because those politicians keep trying to get re-elected. We should probably have publicly funded elections to stop the empty promises exchanged for donations. (Crazy, I know)

But here’s my twist: Why are we having this discussion AT ALL? I’m serious. Why are we fighting about whether or not to allow abortion? Why not prevent the issue altogether? Why not have a rule that men need to get one of those reversible vasectomies until they’re trying to procreate? Seriously. It’s a simple, (relatively) painless & risk-free, and results in almost ZERO abortions nationwide. Why are we dumping the abortion problem entirely on women? That’s sexist. It takes two, after all. We should make it like this:

Men that turn 18 are optionally encouraged to get a reversible vasectomy. Obviously, the government isn’t going to make you do anything. But the government can levee a hefty fine for any unwanted pregnancies that occur after you chose not to get the procedure. You want your female partner to engage in a technically elective procedure because you don’t want to deal with the natural consequence of intercourse, even though it is much harder on the mental health of the woman (regardless of faith). With Medicare-For-All you even want the taxpayers (everyone) to pay for it!! “But it increases the chance of prostate cancer!” Yeaaahh, but all birth control for women increases their chances of cervical cancer and breast cancer. Doesn’t really seem fair to women, does it? Sexist, even? So let’s legally define the limit for abortion as “post-separation viable” which protects the unborn more than the current laws. Then y’all can get to researching ways to keep them alive earlier. More medical research is always better! But let’s reduce the rate of unwanted pregnancy by making men do their part too: make it so unplanned pregnancies that end in abortions are paid for by the men who chose not to get a vasectomy or otherwise practice safe sex. (obviously failed vasectomies are excepted) So, men: freeze sperm in case your doctor messes up the hack job; But again, women face the same troubles with fertility risks, so man up. (puns intended)

15 thoughts on “Abortion

  1. Your solutions are good, but unworkable. Of course you know that. So far I haven’t been able to find any laws governing what a man can do with his own body. Why then is there one for women.?
    There are an unpredictable number of unwanted babies born every year, that often grow up uncared for and throwaways, especially girls. Many of these end up in the illegal sex slave trafficking market.
    Then there are the women, so often impregnated during a rape, or under the influence of drugs. Would you, seriously, expect a woman to feel motherly giving birth under such circumstances.
    According to wikipedea ‘Maternal Death’ one woman dies in the US every two minutes from childbirth complications’. Pregnancy and childbirth are life-threatening, and sometimes lead to a lifetime of suffering for both mother and child.
    I’m neither for or against abortion but I firmly believe it to be a woman’s choice, and these choices can only be made given the circumstances of the individual woman herself.


    1. None of those instances would be stopped by the government? I’m not sure what you’re picking at. I’m just saying if it’s viable separated then you should do the due diligence of giving the removed baby adequate medical treatment until it’s strong and fully grown. I think with current technology that’s what? 6-7 months in? That means you have a 6 month window. I think that’s more than reasonable.


      1. Are you suggesting aborting at 6 to 7 months? If you don’t understand what “I’m picking at” then you are obviously an extremist on the side of anti abortion. You advocate bringing thousands more unwanted children into an uncertain world, many from drug affected mothers and already damaged. God help us all.


      2. Calm down.. I’m clearly saying that aborting separation viable babies is illegal. Anything before that would be legal, technically. Personally I think you should’ve decided way before 6 months whether or not you wanted the abortion and that should be frowned upon, but it’s only separation viable fetuses that you can’t euthanize. I feel you’re not understanding the core concept. If we have the technology to save a 6 month old fetus (as opposed to the natural nine months), then and only then would abortion be illegal. The reason is, the technology to bring that fetus into a fully functional citizen exists and therefore the fetus is recognized as an individual person. How many thousands of children are aborted 7 months into a pregnancy and disposed of when they could be put in an incubator? Does that make sense to you? Again, relax.


      3. We seem to be at cross purposes here.There’s a very interesting piece on the fetus under Wikipedia that is worth the read. I’m neither for or against abortion, but there are situations when it is not in the best interest of the fetus to come to full term. However, I will always defend the rights of a woman to make her own decision regarding her own body. (that’s what I’m picking about) in your own words.


      4. I’m just saying that’s fine, but if we have the resources like an incubator to allow the child to live then you have to use them. Letting them die when putting them in care is possible, is murder.


  2. Each case should be judged on its’ own merit, as no two cases are the same. Please don’t drive abortions back into dirty public toilets and alleyways where the woman is in imminent danger of death from septicemia. Read the statistics on the number of deaths of women world wide from unsafe abortions.


      1. You asked me what my stance is on the subject. I thought the first line of my reply answered your question. ,I’m not talking about late term abortion where the fetus is viable, that is a whole other subject.


      2. Good question! Your post is good and addresses many issues that I agree with. I may have misunderstood some points, for that I apologise. My fear is that if abortion is made illegal, we will step back to the backstreet, unsanitary practices of the past,that, in some cases are still happening today. In Australia, (my home) abortion has been decriminalised, I hope it stays that way.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s