Issue Position: Abortion

Issue Position

Yep. One of the most divisive issues facing our nation. Pro-choice or pro-life? Terms used to insinuate that one sides either with or against the person using it. I am not a fan of either term-- due to their collective antagonistic nature--but I will say that I fall firmly on the side of women and their caregivers making decisions about what is best for them, not politicians. I have read many arguments on both sides; I have participated in discussions for years with some very intelligent individuals; but I have yet to hear an explanation that does not invoke a religious doctrine as to how prohibiting this medical procedure is better for the overall good of the society. I see no reason the government should interfere.

Originally I began writing this entry with the intent to lay out various scenarios and their if-then outcomes in order to illustrate the logic used to arrive at this conclusion. As I started the outline, it quickly became clear that this approach would create a book-sized post. This is not my goal so I have decided to pull back and focus on what I see as the pivotal questions.

* How much government regulation of social issues is appropriate?

* Is there an impact to society as a whole, which overrides personal freedom?

* When does life start?

How much government regulation of social issues is appropriate? The answer to this question impacts ones view on all social issues so will be covered in depth in another entry. For the sake of this discussion, I will say that the government, particularly the federal government, should have as little input on social issues as possible. The only social actions that should be regulated are those, which have a clear impact on others. As an example, drinking is legal. Drinking and driving is not. I agree with both of these positions. Drinking, in and of itself, is a personal decision and one should be free to make that decision as they see fit. Drinking and driving, however, places others in society at a clear risk for injury and/or property loss and should not be allowed.

There are many different degrees of risk and opinions as to what activities pose risk to others. Each has to be weighed against the likelihood of the risk and the potential degree of damage to others. In the example of drinking and driving, the risk has a wide-ranging potential degree of damage, including everything from a busted mailbox to death. There is also a rather high likelihood of the risk becoming reality. For many other activities, it is not easy to assess either of the variables. That is how they become contentious.

If you agree that government regulation should only be used in cases where one individual's actions have the potential to impact another, we move on to the next question. Is there an impact to society as a whole, which overrides personal freedom? There are some cases where potential impact to society as a whole must outweigh individual freedoms. You would not want a Nucs R Us in every mall. Of course, the range between nuclear weapons in every home and abortion is a wide one. Foregoing the issue of when life starts for just a little bit, assume there is no impact to another individual. Is there an impact to society?

It is possible for an action to have an impact to society as a whole without having an immediate and direct impact on an individual. For example, let us consider one who removes a public street sign. This act my not be intended to target an individual but will very probably impact a large number of individuals to some degree. The cumulative impact of this could be considerable--including traffic jams or even accidents, depending on the sign removed. Even if there are no traffic jams or accidents, there is a cost to society to replace the sign.

I have tried to define a societal impact of an abortion but have found none. If we should only regulate social issues that impact others and are not able to define an impact to society as a whole, which would override individual freedom, the issue of abortion hinges on the last question above. When does life start? This is one of the most debated topics in history in every discipline. The philosophical debates alone would fill a library. I prefer to use a medical/ scientific reasoning when possible. In this case, there are several developmental stages during the gestation of a fetus. Along the way features develop which could be associated with a definition of life for some. My view is that until the fetus has a reasonable chance to survive outside the womb, it is not considered as an individual on its own therefore it is optional for a woman to continue carrying it.

This roughly equates to the 24th week of pregnancy, according to most medical journals. While the survival rate of a fetus delivered at 24 weeks is very low, this is the first point in the developmental process where it is even a remote possibility. Prior to this point, I do not think there is an impact to another individual that should outweigh a woman's right to make a decision about having a child. You could argue that the timeframe should be a few weeks one way or the other, but it does not impact the overarching view that abortion is, in my view, a medical procedure that, up until some point in the development of the fetus, has no impact on others. Even after the 24th week, any risk to the woman's health should take priority over that of the fetus unless she decides otherwise. The decision should be entirely up to the woman with input from her caregiver.

Source