My Brain Hurts (bumped for comments)

My man Matty commented on one of my recent posts, and it provoked a good bit of thought on my part. The topic was abortion, and the crux (very briefly) of his discussion, as I read it, is as follows:

• There are ethical grey areas on abortion regardless of how stridently you oppose or support it
• There will be abortions regardless of the laws in place and the severity of the punishment

Both points could not be more true. I have considered both at length, because their implications are significant in a society where morality, law, and science have an intricately interwoven relationship. However, I still conclude that neither one justifies the practice or legalization of abortion. Let's address the lower bullet first, because it's relatively easy, by writing it this way:

• There will be (murder/pedophilia/gambling/blackmail/theft) regardless of the laws in place and the severity of the punishment

So, we can see that the simple existence of something should not preclude efforts to eliminate, or at least curb, that something by legislation and vigorous enforcement. So that one is put to bed on a fundamental, philosophical level. Prohibition does not necessarily preclude, but can suppress. Yet, that first bullet continues to bedevil me and anybody else who thinks seriously about abortion.

The first bullet is typically broken into two basic scenarios. 1) A woman is pregnant or in labor, and is in a situation where either she OR the baby can survive, but not both; and 2) A woman is raped and found to be impregnated by her assailant. Wow. You almost can imagine that God would write down an answer to this, erase it, and write it again repeatedly before getting it right. From this point on there are two primary factors driving the decision process. They are how you set moral boundaries and how you could ever write a clear, concise, and enforceable law to affect your policy. Put in other words, how do you define the issue morally, and how do you make it work in a nation of over 300 million citizens. And many millions of non citizens.

As I hope I have shown in past posts, I represent the evangelical Christian moral viewpoint. In the case of mother or baby but not both survive, the overwhelming principle is value of life. Well, there are two lives involved, either one could die tomorrow even if they are chosen to survive the trauma of childbirth, and for all we know either one could cure cancer or waste their lives in trivial pursuits. Not the board game, I mean... never mind. So, this is a rare instance where I think we need to look exclusively at the "how do we write effective law" aspect. Personally, I take the approach of treating it as an organ donor situation. Somebody who is alive at a key moment, although facing imminent death, can save another life by sacrificing their own body. What do you need to make such a sacrifice? Well, donor consent is essential. So, the mother, if conscious, should legally have the right at any time to sacrifice herself for the sake of the child without any other input. Fair enough. As for the child, there are two legal guardians, the mother and father. Therefore, if BOTH mother and father consent to sacrificing the baby for sake of the mother's survival, legally you would have to let it happen (again, using organ donor logic). What if the father is estranged or on work travel or in no state of mind to make any sort of decision (which is very likely)? I cannot say, but that is the issue you would have to reconcile to write effective law.

As for the case of impregnation through rape (let's say "impregnato via enrapo", to feel Latin-y and feel legal), that is the trickiest of all. Wifey has done a bit of research on this topic, and has come up with a solution superior to anything I have thus far. When a woman claims rape, it would be totally justifiable to perform a procedure that cleanses her reproductive organs while obtaining DNA to find and use against the accused offender. Knowing that it takes at least a matter of hours for an egg to implant, it would have no hospitable place to land, so thus is passed along with no consequence. Therefore, effective law should require that any woman should report rape to the proper authorities within 24 hours, and moral issues can be cut to almost none. What this woman waits to report the crime, say for a period to exceed a few days? Well, most likely that is because it is acquaintance rape. Ugh. Note that the unborn baby still has done nothing wrong to deserve death. I think our legal system has actually headed in the right direction by establishing that murdering a pregnant women results in two murder charges. Perhaps to follow that course logically, while maintaining the baby's right to exist, the rapist is charged for his crime twice. He is an immediate repeat offender. Yes, this leaves a woman responsible for dealing with the crime of another, a victim in probably every sense. However, she should receive the full support of the government to assist her. This follows Matty's path to enacting government policies to reduce abortions. This could come in the form of social security payments to the child as though its father had died, in addition to child support to be paid by the rapist.

Whew, that was a long-winded post. In summary: laws to prevent abortion are not fundamentally unsound, babies should be considered for abortion when the mother is in jeopardy only when consistent legal and medical principles are applied (I chose the organ donor scenario), and the baby has still committed no crime in the case of impregnation by rape so the government should double-prosecute the rapist and provide the full weight of society's support for the mother and child who remain.