Understanding Abortion
The key issue is ‘when does life begin?’
If we look to the Old Testament, and the Jewish tradition, life is considered to begin at the first breath, just as Adam has his life through breath given in Genesis; or the armies rebuilt from the Valley of Dry Bones in Ezekiel 37 needing the breath of God to give them life. This is seen in the legal distinction in Exodus 21 v 22 between the penalties for an attack leading to a miscarriage vs an attack where the pregnant woman dies. The lives are not considered equal.
Science stuff
Conception is the joining together of cells that have already had been divided to be half of a future embryo. During every ejaculation of sperm; and every period shedding, these potential new lives fail to come into being. When an egg is penetrated by a sperm, they begin to multiple into more cells. But if that fertilised egg does not imbed into the uterus lining then pregnancy cannot proceed. When a fertilised egg remains stuck in the fallopian tube then it cannot lead to life, and if not removed could lead to the death of the mother. Even when in the uterus, it is estimated that 40% or more of pregnancies will naturally miscarry. This can be for a variety of reasons, including when the genetic mix from sperm and egg are incompatible with life. When the foetus cells are viable they begin to take on different roles – some of those will form the placenta, an organ that is discarded at birth. Others will become the amniotic sac. The placenta forms 3-4 weeks after fertilisation which equates to a woman being told she is 5-6 weeks pregnant (since dates are estimated from last period).
The concept of consciousness is debated but varies from late pregnancy to early life . Brain development to the level of feeling pain is in the third trimester. Any medical intervention that late includes anesthesia direct to the foetus as well as the mother. But these are rare and extreme cases.
When does life begin?
Cells that divide and multiple can be regarded as alive. A lot of cancer research has used the ‘immortal’ HeLa cell line – cancer cells taken from an individual patient and as long as provided access to the relevant nutrients will continue to grow indefinitely. One definition of cancer is human cells dividing without control.
So clearly a collection of dividing cells is not the same as a new life, although technically alive. An embryo though is a new mixture of genes, the potential for a distinct identity. So does that new life begin at conception as some claim? Well if it did then we are left some with complex theological issues – are the 40% of pregnancies that are estimated to end before a pregnancy has even been confirmed actual souls that have identity but cast aside by biology? Or the ectopic pregnancies that before medical intervention would kill the mother as well as the embryo? Or on another track if the soul begins with conception – then what about when a single fertilised egg divides into identical twins, who despite genetic unity are very much individuals, how does that reflect a belief in conception as the beginning of the soul/identity?
So what?
There are implications to seeing abortion as murder, and that any embryo (including those from IVF treatment that are frozen at stages before cells differentiate, when those cells may yet be unable to embed in a womb, when they may form the placenta rather than the foetus) has personhood. It quickly goes from seeing the foetus as equal to the mother; to campaigns to ‘defend’ the foetus from the mother. This has led to the various abortion bans in US states – leaving medical staff under threat of criminal action if they do anything related to the abortion process. This has led to women with complex miscarriages; or haemorrhaging whilst a foetus incompatible with life outside the womb still has a heartbeat – not getting urgent medical treatment, and some have died, Sacrificed to single issue politics. Amber Nicole Thurman; Candi Miller and those whose families have not gone public.
Others like Kate Cox have been forced to travel huge distances to get medical help because the danger to her own life was not sufficiently advanced – despite the foetal diagnosis of a condition that meant death to the newborn within hours or days of birth - potentially in pain, both in utero and beyond.
Pro-choice = pro abortion?
This is a key flaw in the pro-life lobby agenda. The pro-choice supporters are not about encouraging abortions. It is about allowing the option – to make it a matter between a woman and her doctor, not a legal ruling that makes medics afraid to do their jobs.
Statistics show that abortions decrease when unplanned pregnancies decrease – this is proven to happen when there is good quality sex ed – including understanding consent; where there is access to birth control (all ages, the family who cannot afford an extra mouth to feed is very real); availability of the morning after pill especially in cases of assault. Being in a place where the cost of pregnancy care is not a concern; or where there is social support for the child once born. Medical costs and impact on existing family would also be a factor in choosing to go ahead with a pregnancy when a life limiting, high level care, diagnosis is made. But the pro-life lobby also argue against these social level options - preferring to condemn individuals instead.
Abortions up to birth?
This is claimed by the prolife lobby. The reality is that a woman wanting to not be pregnant seeks to end it as soon as possible. When abortion is accessible this will likely be within weeks of pregnancy confirmation. When access is limited (lack of clinics and need to collect sufficient funds to travel to a facility) then they have to wait until the foetus is more developed. In UK almost 90% of abortions are before 10 weeks (see Fig 10 under Gestational time). Given that it will be several weeks before a person knows they are pregnant, this shows the desire to act with urgency when an abortion is sought.
When it comes to cases when someone has carried a pregnancy for over 6 months – these rare abortion cases are from wanted children, but horrific diagnoses; or massive risk to the mother – maybe twins where one has died and their body infecting the other and the mother; or where there is no longer a heartbeat; or knowing that the baby cannot live outside of the support of the womb.
Any intervention at this stage is palliative care for the foetus; anesthesia is used. And compares to carrying to term with potential levels of pain to the foetus, and certainly pain in any brief life outside the womb. And the physical and emotional health of the mother knowing the child can't live, but waiting out those final weeks like that, with people expecting you to be positive and looking forward.
Of course before modern medicine we had no way to know until birth; but now we do know - and that means we have to decide what to do with that knowing. We have some amazing cases where that knowing enables pre-natal operations and medical miracles that save a foetus that would have previously died. But that is not an option for everything that might mean a foetus is not capable of life outside of the womb; away from the placental nurture.
People do not carry a child for 6-8 months and only then decide to abort. Yet the US pro-life lobby would have its people believe that this is what the pro-choice advocates want to happen. Indeed Trump claims that 'abortion at birth is a reality' . And some supporters believe that this is actually happening in distant Democratic states. It is an example of the one dimensional position that is presented to those they claim to inform.
Pro life or pro birth?
When the pro-life lobby actively reject all the above proven ways to reduce levels of abortions -in favour of personal blame and individual condemnation - then I feel that we need to question the agenda from the top. Not from those who have only ever been given one point of view; but from those seeking to shape the agenda. The message is one of control – of labelling individual women for getting pregnant; for seeking an abortion – rather than addressing cultural issues that mean a disabled child can mean medical bankruptcy, instead of a family worth the additional social support.
It is not enough to say that they are pro life by banning abortions (history shows that just takes them underground and less safe); they need to actively support children after their birth – tackling poverty; working parents still unable to feed their children; the social implications of the no abortion but also no birth control ideal that the US pro life lobby promotes. If they are to be born, then how does the pro life lobby seek to support them through childhood?
Why is the US teen pregnancy rate higher in the Bible Belt? Why does abstinence only sex ed lead to abuse when people did not understand what was happening to them? Why do churches consistently cover up sexual abuse? (Since the Catholic church scandal; most denominations have faced their own histories – though too many white evangelicals in US, under cover of independence, have continued to protect abusers and blame teen girls for ‘tempting’ their predatory Youth Pastor).
Personal view
I recall coming home from uni for a holiday and hearing that someone who had been a close friend through school had had an abortion. I was told via others that my friend feared to tell me because of my Christian beliefs. I went to knock on their door and simply hugged her. I have never felt it my business to judge, and wrestled with the idea that a friend would be afraid to be themselves with me due to my faith.
Like most pro-choice people I do not see abortion as a good thing. Yet it can be the least worst thing; and that involves factors that are none of my business. But alongside support for abortion as a choice, I support policies that enable women to keep unplanned children; that give girls and women knowledge to protect themselves; and to empower themselves; and that challenges the condemnation heaped on single mothers.
No comments:
Post a Comment