Abortion
1 February 2006Perhaps the most heavily debated and hotly controversial topics in recent times is the issue of abortion. Most individuals have a fairly firm stance on one side of the issue or the other. Abortion is at the forefront of politics and ethics.
My opinion is that getting an abortion is an unethical practice. Actually, my stance is a bit firmer than that. My belief is that abortion should be illegal, except in a few rare exceptions. There are many reasons for this belief, one of course being my Christianity. I believe that abortion is unsupported in the Bible, and furthermore I believe there is actually scriptural evidence that abortion is considered evil. 1 But my conviction about abortion transcends my religious beliefs.
In this essay, I would like to offer my secular reasons for believing that abortion is immoral. Therefore, one need not be religious in order to accept the arguments put forth here.
The Immorality of Abortion
I think all rational persons reading this will agree with me that killing innocent human beings is immoral. Thus, my argument here will primarily be concerned with showing that unborn embryos and fetuses are in fact human beings. Once it is determined that the unborn are human beings, it becomes obvious that abortion is an unethical practice.
A sperm is life. An egg is life. “Life” in this term does not necessitate our concern. We aren’t concerned with scratching our arm because we don’t want to kill skin cells. Humans, however, are quite important, and are deserving of protection and respect. Some may claim that a sperm and an egg combined and a sperm and egg separated are essentially the same (in other words, there is no critical distinction between the separated sex cells and the sex cells combined). However, I find this to be quite untrue. There is a very important distinction between the two.
When a sperm and egg cell combine, it becomes something fundamentally different. It becomes a human being in its early stages. The embryo has the information necessary to develop into a fully-functioning human being like you or me. In addition, the embryo is already in the process of developing into a human like you or me. The only essential difference between the embryo and a full-grown human is that they are in different stages of life.
There are also several advantages to identifying the beginning of human life at conception. It is simpler than all other points of identification. It leaves no room for doubt as to when the unborn deserves protection (there is no “limbo” between humanity and inhumanity). Also, identifying humanity at conception leads to no moral dilemmas. In short, there are good reasons to accept my definition of the beginning of humanity and no good reasons to reject them. But some may disagree.
If a pro-abortionist can come up with a better distinction for the beginning of humanity, then it is possible that abortion is a moral act, at least in the secular sense. Thus, I will examine attempts to create different criteria, and I will see if any of them fare better than my own definition.
Physical Characteristics
There are a number of unscholarly arguments used by unsophisticated abortion advocates. Here is a partial list of such arguments:
1. The embryo doesn’t even look human, it’s like a limp fish.
2. The embryo is so tiny it’s just a speck.
3. The embryo has a tail, gill slits, and other animal features. It’s not really a human yet.
It is almost needless to say that such arguments are invalid. Since when has protection by the law been determined by looks or size? Are people that look like monkeys unprotected? What about midgets? Obviously, the physical appearance of the embryo is absolutely irrelevant to the issue of whether or not abortion is a moral action.
But even if that were not the case, it is oftentimes untrue that aborted fetuses look very different than a small child. Unborn children develop human-like characteristics at an early stage.
Viability
A slightly more powerful argument advanced by abortion advocates is that the unborn becomes a human being worthy of protection once it has the ability to survive without the mother. Fetuses are typically viable after about 24 weeks, so this argument cannot be used to advocate abortions beyond the 24th week of pregnancy. In any case, viability fails as a valuable criteria for two important reasons.
1. Viability, or the point in which the fetus is able to survive outside the mother, has changed throughout history. Viability used to be considered to occur quite a bit after the 24 week period. These days, due primarily to increased medical technology, the point of viability has changed. Surely we cannot consider viability to be a valuable and objective criteria for determining the humanity of the embryo/fetus. It is ridiculous to suppose that the humanity of the fetus changes depending on the time. The implications are disastrous. 100 years ago we could allow millions of abortions to take place on fetuses that are now considered viable! Perhaps in the future fetuses will become viable at week 15. All of the sudden, every single abortion that we had previously between the time of 16 and 23 weeks was murder of an innocent human being.
2. Viability also depends on medical technology available. The unborn fetus in the U.S. becomes viable much earlier than the unborn fetus in Sudan. However, it is ridiculous to suppose that there is anything objectively different between the unborn in Sudan and the unborn in the U.S.
For these reasons, the proposed criteria of viability must not be used as a criteria for the humanity of the unborn.
Dependence
Another common pro-abortion argument is that, since the child is dependent upon the mother, the mother has the right to kill the embryo/fetus.
This criterion has disastrous implications. Consider Siamese Twins, John and Fred. John is the dominant one and doesn’t require Fred to live but Fred requires John in order to live. Does John have the right to kill Fred? I would think not. (In actuality, Fred’s dependence could be much more taxing on John than the dependence between a mother and child. Furthermore, the mother and child will eventually discontinue dependence- which is not the case with conjoined twins. It seems rather hypocritical for us to allow termination in the case of the unborn but disallow it in the case of conjoined twins.)
In any case, it is unclear as to whether or not dependence ends at birth anyways. Sometimes the mother is the only person who can help the baby survive. Nobody would then wish to argue that the mother has the right to kill the infant because the infant is “dependent” on her. Either way, it is obviously not true that the mother has the right to kill the unborn merely because the unborn is dependent upon the mother.
Brain Function
A very popular pro-abortion argument is that there is a significant difference between an embryo/fetus without higher brain function and a fetus with the ability for higher brain function. However, fetuses in the womb have registered brain waves so this argument is not sufficient to allow abortions at any period during the pregnancy.
However, I fail to see how the ability for minimal brain function is really all that significant at all. After all, the most important functions of the brain are to provide self-concept, personality, memories, etc. These are the important things that make us into the people we are. The mere possession of brain tissue is quite insignificant in the whole scheme of things. Since brain function by itself is not a valuable criterion for determining the humanity of the fetus, it should be rejected unless conjoined with the proposition that one must have personality, self-concept, memories, etc. in order to deserve protection as a human being.
Of course, personality, self-concept, etc. all develop much after childbirth. This criterion would lead to legal infanticide, so I doubt it would be supported by any moral man.
Another major problem with the criterion of brain function is that persons in a coma would not be deserving of protection. But just because persons in a coma do not have the ability to think does not mean that they are undeserving of protection, as almost all will agree. So, it seems to me that brain function is a useless criterion for determining the point of humanity.
Sociological Arguments
A whole different class of arguments deals not with whether or not the fetus is a human, but with the supposed sociological, economical, and political backlashes of the illegalization of abortion. Thus, the following are a few good examples:
1. The illegalizaton of abortion will lead to increased deaths from unsafe abortions.
2. There will be nobody to adopt the millions of babies.
3. It is emotionally harmful to force a women to have a baby against her will.
This is just a small sampling. Arguments of this form are extremely numerous. However, they are actually quite irrelevant to the issue. After all, none of the above, even if true, leads to the justification of killing innocent human beings. These arguments are nothing but a distraction from that main issue- whether or not abortion is a form of murder.
Most of these arguments, in my mind, are definitely faulty. However, I will not address them here because they are nothing but a distraction.
When is Abortion Moral?
There is one instance in which abortion is a valid option. Namely, if the life of the mother is at imminent risk then the mother should be able to decide whether or not she wants an abortion. I believe it is moral in this instance because one must choose between the lesser of two evils.
There are however, some instances in which even pro-life individuals believe abortion should be an option. Three common examples include the instances of rape, incest, and deformation of the child.
On the issue of rape I do not believe abortion is justified. Certainly I think it is terrible for a rape to happen to a woman. Women who are raped should get governmental assistance and priority in adoption agencies and orphanages (and I support the harshest penalties for the man involved- including death penalty). However, the unborn child is not at fault for the rape of his/her mother. Therefore we are not justified in allowing the mother to kill an innocent human being.
On the issue of incest and/or deformation I do not believe abortion is justified either. The child that is the result of the wrongful relationship is still a human being. We should not deny that person the chance to live life. We are not in the position to play God and decide whether or not the child will have a fulfilling life. We all deserve a chance, even those of us with disadvantages.
Conclusion
The final plea of the pro-abortionist is “don’t impose your morality on me!” However, there are times when it is quite appropriate to impose your own standards upon others. In the same manner that I will not tolerate infanticide, I will not sit idly by while abortions are carried out.
This does not mean that I have no compassion for those who have had abortions or those who support the practice of abortion. Many of them may be honestly mistaken. However, it is very important that our society discontinues the practice of abortion now. It is perhaps the most important issue our society faces today.
NOTES:
1. J.P. Holding, “Aborted Exegesis”, http://www.tektonics.org/abortion01.html
——————————————————————————————————————
your_ip_is_blacklisted_by sbl.spamhaus.org
the most perplexing thing about pro-choice advocates is that they believe that no life is better than a bad life. which obviously leads down a humorous road. ie. if i could sufficiently prove that their life was bad than suicide would be in their best interests. it seems as if suffering has become the thing which we most dread and succumb to. overcoming one’s surroundings is possible however it seems as if modern society has been taught that it isn’t. genes are the ultimate determinant. nature not nurture. born gay means you’re gay (this one is questionable). murder genes means you’re a murderer. the goal obviously is to remove responsibilty for actions, which it doesn’t, however, enough people believe it that it can. these same people will complain when everyone is genetically profiled at birth and people with homicidal genes will be sent to prison. and those with imperfect genes will become janitors because they’re really won’t be anything else for them to do since computers will do most everything.
i am dumbfounded when i ask someone if no life is better than bad life and they reply “yes”. i guess we should all commit suicide because none of us will come as close to rockstars as far as utility, pleasure, money, fame, mates, experiences, friends and hedonism go.
— noelson Feb 22, 02:37 AM #
Wait, you support the death penalty for rapists… yet you don’t believe mothers should be allowed to “play God” by having an abortion? Sentencing a rapist to death (and carrying out the death penalty) is absolutely playing God. The death of one human at the hands of another is murder, no matter who the victim is or isn’t and what he/she has done or not done. That’s that basis for your whole abortion argument, is it not? If we all deserve a chance to live (as you state), then why doesn’t the rapist deserve his own chance?
And you say that you will not tolerate infanticide. Yet the killing of babies and children goes on every single day in many parts of the world. Do you go to these places and educate the people there about the dangers of infanticide? Do you donate your time and/or money to charities and organizations that protect children from infanticide? Have you adopted a child that would otherwise have been killed? If the answer to these questions is no, then you DO tolerate infanticide because you aren’t helping to stop it. You may say that you wouldn’t let a neighbor throw her newborn baby in a lake, yes. But what about the mother in Africa who can barely support her family of 7, let alone another child, and feels she must sacrifice her new baby’s life to save her family? What are you doing to help her?
PS. If you think the most important function of the brain is to “provide self-concept, personality, memories, etc” you need to take a few courses in psychology, my friend. There is NO evidence that personality or self-concept or ego (whatever you want to call it) has a concrete basis in the brain. Some say it comes from the heart, from the soul, or even from some collective consciousness that exists outside of our bodies. Having a brain does not guarantee one a personality. Babies born brain dead do not exhibit personalities, yet they still have a brain!! Also, the statement that “personality, self-concept, etc. all develop much after childbirth” is NOT ‘of course’... it isn’t a fact by any means. On the contrary, there is much evidence to show that “personality” is indeed inborn and might even be inscribed on our DNA.
— the researcher Mar 14, 07:35 AM #
researcher,
As for the death penalty, firstly, my support of this policy really has no bearing on my argument. But secondly, there is an obvious difference between an unborn child/infant and a rapist, namely, that the rapist is a proven danger to society. And of course the “rapist” deserves a chance to live, in fact he has already been given a chance. Unfortunately, he abused that chance to the detriment of the safety, health, and well being of others. So I don’t think I am being inconsistent here.
As for the tragedies ocurring in the third world, personally I think it is quite presumptuous of you to judge me, honestly. You have no idea what I am like, what concerns me, and what I have done. And as a matter of fact, I do donate to the third world- in fact I am currently sponsoring a child through Christian Children’s fund. Furthermore, one of my greatest aspirations is to contribute significantly to alleviating suffering in the third world. If I had a choice, I would love to be a philosopher and college professor, but I am deeply burdened to try my best to help people who face such suffering, and so I am entering business/politics in order to hopefully gain enough wealth and influence to make a large difference. And, again to be honest, I would bet that I think about these issues more often than you do, since I have molded my life around trying to make a difference in just this area. I say this not to brag, but to defend myself from your character assassination.
As for the issue of brain function, my personal belief is that we all have a soul. But my article is an attempt to show that, even by secular standards, abortion is immoral. As for your claim that I need to learn more psychology, I must admit that I am slightly confused. As far as I know, most theorists would suppose that the brain IS the seat of consciousness and personality. This seems to me to be the only real possibility for those that would deny the existence of the soul. However, I would be interested if you could find some sort of credible source that actually claims personality “comes from the heart.” That view is completely incoherent- the heart is an organ that pumps blood, so this view doesn’t even make sense.
Anyways, my arguments against abortion are correct whether it is the soul or the brain that is the seat of conciousness.
Sincerely,
Kyle.
— Kyle Deming Mar 14, 08:25 AM #
Well what can I say. Your argument has ignored the majority of the literature on the morality of abortion. Such an omission is surprising to say the least. Two influential arguments in favour of abortion are by Peter Singer and Judith Jarvis Thompson and there is nothing in your article which refers to their arguments. Yet their arguments have been so influential that one would expect to find versions of them in any introductory textbook on the morality of abortion or even practical ethics in general. I wonder whether such an omission is intentional or whether you just did not know their arguments existed.
Both arguments could potentially be crippling to your argument. Thompson’s argument starts by assuming the anti-abortion claim that the foetus is a human being (or person). Thompson goes on to show that even if we grant this assumption abortion can still be morally justified. To do this she uses a number of analogies. Thus Thompson provides a powerful argument against the assumption that if the foetus is a human being (or person) then abortion must be morally unjustifiable. Yet you take for granted this very assumption when you say “Thus, my argument here will primarily be concerned with showing that unborn embryos and foetuses are in fact human beings. Once it is determined that the unborn are human beings, it becomes obvious that abortion is an unethical practice.”
Peter Singer argues that to assume that all human life is valuable just because it is human is anthropocentric. Singer suggests that there should be some independent criteria by which we judge what makes a life valuable. He calls this criteria personhood. Such criteria should afford value to any type of life which meets its conditions. Singer and others have made many suggestions for what would be suitable criteria for personhood. Suggestions have included things like, self valuing capabilities, self-reflecting capabilities, intelligence, intentionality, self identity etc. Now many of these criterions a foetus would lack, for example a foetus does not have the ability to value its own life. If a foetus lacks the appropriate criteria then it is not a person and thus it life does not have the value that personhood has. Clearly you failed to deal with this argument because you did not seek to defend why it should be human life and not personhood life that should be valued.
So far I have given a crude outline of Thompson’s and Singer’s arguments. If you think you have a good objection to their arguments then that is great. However I suggest you go and read their arguments for yourself. Their arguments are much more sophisticated then what I have presented here and they have powerful replies to many of the obvious objections. There is also a huge literature of critical commentary (both for and against) on their arguments which you may want to examine.
— Matt Apr 18, 02:27 PM #
I’m a crack addicted woman who has abortions monthly. Who’d want me to be a mom anyway?
— Amber Jan 11, 02:52 AM #
Yo Matt, I read your comment and I read a bit on Singer. I’ll mince no words; Singer AND you are sick if you actually believe that because babies do not have self-consciousness, that it is morally justifiable to kill them. You are not truly self-conscious when you sleep; can I kill you in your sleep and think that it’s acceptable?
Oh, so Singer says that he INVENTED his own set of criteria for what HE thinks makes a person worthy of life? And if someone (be it deformed babies, vegetables, etc.) doesn’t measure up to his standard, then to death with them? How hard is it to see the horrid nature in those words, man?
Clearly, the argument HAS been dealt with because it is nothing new. Peter has made no new amazing pro-abortion argument. It is merely the same old thing, that is: “What clever words [like ‘criteria person-hood’] can we come up with to dodge the fact that unborn babies are human beings that deserve to live?”
He is not even consistent with his own beliefs. If you read up on him, you’d see that he had to deal with his own mother having Alzheimer’s and he even admitted that it’s hard to deal with that situation. He actually claims that it would have been morally acceptable to kill her off, but if that’s the case, why was it hard for him to deal with it? Perhaps because, despite all of his word-weaving, his mother still had intrinsic value and and he must admit that he is not consistent? Yes.
Big deal if their arguments are more “sophisticated”. Saying, “I can kill who I want based on my own criteria” in a more sophisticated way does not make an argument better. If I can point out one huge constant in the pro-choice position tactic-book, it’s the ability to use deceitful yet intelligently-woven language to make “murder” sound fine.
— Shane May 4, 04:49 AM #
I found three major flaws with your argument: 1) a seemingly arbitrary choice of when life begins; 2) ignorance of the fact that viability changes with medical advances (even though you state this fact); 3) an inconsistent appreciation for the sacredness of human life.
First, your presumption that a combined sperm and egg constitute a human being is simply your opinion. Others who oppose contraception might say that sperm and eggs constitute the early stages of human development, and that they just lack conception and time to nurture. Of course an egg alone cannot become a baby, but an embryo alone cannot become a baby either. It would helpful for you to at least recognize that this statement is merely your opinion.
Second, if viability changes with advances in medicine, then it is still logical to use viability as a criteria for determining when abortion is ethical even though it is a moving target. If, 100 years ago, a fetus could not live without the mother at 24 weeks, it would not be considered viable. However, if a fetus is viable today at 24 weeks due to medical advances, it doesn’t suddenly make an abortion that took place 100 years ago immoral based on that reason alone.
Third, a rapist, regardless of the “danger to society” that he or she may pose, is undoubtedly a fully formed human being. Since you made secular arguments, I will ignore the so often ignored concepts of “forgiveness” and “redemption” that are so central to the Christian faith. But considering that a rapist locked in jail for life poses absolutely no threat to society, how is it suddenly justifiable to take such strong actions to murder another human being? Because that’s what the death penalty is: murder. If someone loses a loved one due to murder, decides to “take matters into their own hands” and commits murder as revenge, this would still be considered murder in our society and be viewed as unethical. How is it any different when society as a whole decides to return violence with more violence? Who are we to decide who has value worthy of living and who does not?
— mark Jul 30, 09:24 PM #
First of all, I find your namecalling tendencies to be distracting. There’s no logical reason for you to call pro-choice activists names just because they disagree with you, and I hope that you apologize.
I do have a question, though: how would you define a human being? What characteristics must an animal have for it to be considered human, homo sapiens sapiens?
It’s noting that genetically we are 99.8% similar to chimpanzees; when does the .2% that distinguishes us as humans come out? Certainly not in the first few months of development. The reason why people use the “physical characteristics” argument is that the embryo of a human is very similar to embryos of other mammals. Now you say this is irrelevant, but would you allow the abortion of other animals’ embryos and (feti?) fetuses?
I’ll allow you to respond now.
— Bob Oct 20, 03:18 PM #
Mark,
First, my choice of conception as the start of life was not arbitrary or merely ‘my opinion’ but was based on objective facts. You can disagree if you like, and indeed I challenge the abortion advocate to provide a better definition for when life begins. Many of these alternative definitions (i.e. viability, brain function, etc.) were analyzed in the article and found to be faulty. Of course, if you disagree then you will have to provide your own arguments or at least undermine my arguments.
Second, even if it is granted that time does not destroy the objectivity of the viability criteria, it is still implausible to suppose that the identification of life should be related to physical location (i.e., a fetus in Africa is viable much later than one in America).
Third, the comments about the death penalty are unrelated to the main issue of this article. I do in fact support the death penalty in some cases, but this is an entirely different issue and one which I will defend in a separate essay.
Bob,
After re-reading my article, I am frankly struggling to find any area where I have ‘namecalling tendencies.’ I strive to be fair and objective and to keep polemical language to a minimum, so if you could point out some places where I use harsh language, by all means let me know.
As to your question of genetics, the embryo has all the genetics of a human being at the moment of conception. At this point the embryo is 100% genetically human. Thus, our genetic relatedness to chimpanzees is entirely irrelevant.
As for other animals, if it is wrong to kill an innocent specimen of that animal without sufficient justification, then it would be wrong to kill the unborn offspring of that animal. This issue gets into the area of animal ethics. My personal stance on this is that, all things being equal, we should not kill animal life. However, I think it is permissible to kill animals (as painlessly as possible) for food, clothing, and so on. In any case, this issue is entirely divorced from the current issue under discussion.
Sincerely,
Kyle.
— Kyle Deming Nov 7, 09:06 AM #
In some of your articles you claim the opposing side’s logic is “laughable” when you are using Ad hominem arguments. If you are so comfortable with your argument, you shouldn’t feel the need to ‘laugh’ at the opposition.
Your logic is neither infallible, nor irrefutable.
I respect a good argument, but when you start to mock, it gets a little annoying.
You are much like the public demonstrators humiliating the young ladies as they walk, shamefully, into the abortion clinic. You don’t think about Christ. You don’t think about her. You don’t know what she’s been through. You have no idea why she is doing it. You could never touch the pain she has felt struggling over her baby’s life.
Chill out, dude.
— Annoyed Christian Dec 19, 10:46 AM #
If God is the all powerful then why doesn’t anyone think that he will do as he will. If a woman wants to have an abortion it should be between her and God, not her, you and God. You say not to kill someone because that would be acting as God, so why then, do you think it is ok to tell someone wether or not they can have a operation that has nothing to do with you? Just think about that.
— Anne Jan 31, 10:18 AM #
Annoyed Christian,
Concerned with your comment, I scanned this article to see if I ever claimed that the other side’s arguments are laughable, but I did not find it. What articles are you referring to? When I say that arguments are laughably bad, I am often referring to the absurd conclusions that I argue follow from arguments, and not laughing at the actual position of the person advancing the argument. In any case, perhaps it is a bit too much rhetorical flourish, and I should be careful to avoid that type of language. Generally, I think I avoid it, though I sometimes slip up. If you truly find any inflammatory or disrespectful language in any of my writings, by all means please inform me.
However, I find the latter part of your comment distressing, where you basically impugn my character by comparing me to unsympathetic demonstrators, and claim that I don’t think about her or about Christ! How could you possibly know my heart on this issue (from merely reading a few articles I’ve written on the subject) in order to convict me of such a despicable attitude? For someone so concerned with ad hominem attacks, you are very quick to smear me and my character.
I consider my logic neither infallible nor irrefutable, and I think that I fair reading of the material I have written on this site and elsewhere would demonstrate this.
Sincerely,
Kyle.
— Kyle Deming May 30, 04:45 AM #
Kyle,
Your writing style sucks.
Every sentence sounds the same.
You remind me of another time, and another right-cause-i’m-white panderer of prefab ethics.
Reduce! Reuse! Recycle!
Cheers.
— Kyle Deming Jun 4, 09:08 PM #
We inhereit from our ancestors gifts so often taken for granted… Each of us contains within… this inheritance of soul. We are links between the ages, containing past and present expectations, sacred memories and future promise.
— ambien online Jun 23, 08:48 AM #
I used to believe that marriage would diminish me, reduce my options. That you had to be someone less to live with someone else when, of course, you have to be someone more.
— soma Jun 25, 11:05 PM #
i would love to see your stance on the morning after pill, which is technically an abortive agent and provided free to rape victims. in this instance, is it morally wrong? could a baby develop that was conceived the day before? it’s like, four cells.
i loved your stance on birth control. that issue was all that was keeping me from wanting to marry my evangelical christian boyfriend. i’m a roman catholic, and my priest said the exact same thing you did. but you had cited passages, and finally convinced the boy. i have a medical condition, and i will probably miscarry or die if i become pregnant. thanks.
— kaye Aug 11, 12:40 AM #
Great article. LOVED IT. You’re a pretty smart feller.
God Bless!
— SoopaFly Sep 16, 08:58 AM #
Great article. Something else I just learned that I found very interesting. The original Hippocratic oath made by the ancient Greeks, most known for its phrase that doctors will “First do no harm to their patients,” has a clause that states that a doctor will not do anything to a woman to cause her to have an abortion. Even back in ancient Greece, abortion was considered immoral and wrong. I love that you’ve come from a secular standpoint to argue this one. Powerful stuff.
— BenjiMester Apr 20, 02:33 AM #
I think it would be a good idea to comb through this again and take out the emotionally-driven and weakly worded pieces, such as your paragraph immediately following the physical evidence part. It weakens what can be a decent argument.
— Barbara Jul 1, 07:56 AM #
Barbara,
Once again, every time I read a comment claiming that I have used emotional or abusive language in the article, I get really concerned, realizing I wrote this article about 4 years ago. However, I always find upon further review that the claims I use such inappropriate language are simply mystifying to me. I simply don’t see what you are referring to. I do think there are many weakly worded phrases, and I will hopefully rewrite this article soon to address that concern, as well as to address some further arguments. All the best.
Sincerely,
Kyle.
— Kyle Deming Jul 17, 03:38 PM #
I have had an abortion. What I have to say is anecdotal—perhaps—but it was tangible experience nevertheless. I had a chemical abortion at nearly 10 weeks. Protesters sporadically roamed the street near the clinic. None were hostile. None slung insults or harassed me or followed me. A woman timidly tried to hand me a flyer as I left. I can’t recall her speaking a word, but I’ll never forget that deeply haunted look in her cornflower blue eyes.
I felt emotionally blunted at the time; numbness was the only way I could carry on while living with an abusive ex who threatened me into compliance. I felt more like a shadow, than a person, drifting though everyday minutiae with nary an emotional twitch.
But then my world exploded with color… When I was unconscious, I had recurrent nightmares of a little jellybean spasming in pain in a futile fight for life. I can’t go on describing the rest because it’s just… Too much, too awful to relive. These gruesome images began to intrude into waking thoughts. Internally, I would dissolve into something akin to panic and self-loathing.
I left the abuser and got married to a man who wanted children. I miscarried twice. When I did get pregnant successfully, we monitored the baby much more frequently under the high risk classification. I had an ultrasound at 11 weeks. I didn’t see a bean or a fish or a crude amalgamation of an organism. I saw this person, kicking her legs out and back, as if jumping. She was irrefutably human on the ultrasound. My breath caught in my throat when she tucked her hand up to her head as if sucking her thumb.
The aborted baby was not even 2 weeks younger at the time of its chemical slaughter.
Some small part of me was destroyed upon realizing the implications of what I’d done. When i looked in the mirror therafter, the same look as the protester reflected back at me. Broken. Haunted. Again, words are inadequate, and much like the grinch’s heart, my self-loathing swelled 3 times over. I started to hemorrhage in the second trimester because the placenta had partially torn away from the uterus. The pregnancy became life threatening. My sister—an er nurse—treated a few cases in her day, one woman barely survived and needed over 7 units of blood.
I would never kill another. Never. In a way, I thought of my potential death as a just desserts of sorts. I hemorrhaged for weeks… My skin got grey, the world shifted all around with significant movement, and I had searing pains in my lower abdomen, and I’ve had broken bones, bike accidents, pneumonia, dental work without anesthesia, and a drill press through the hand. My reference for pain was not a trivial one.
I’ve been in several pairs of shoes, the abortioner, the woman whose life was in danger…. The labor was not textbook—it was kinder, easier. My daughter is healthy, robust, happy, gentle tempered, and at nearly nine months old she’s mastered a range of consonants, speed-crawling, standing, and rudimentary sign language. She is the sweetest little joy….
…and her “beginning” was indistinguishable from the murdered baby’s.
— Voice of experience Aug 27, 02:57 PM #