Let's get practical

Those labelled pro-life and pro-choice have an unbridgeable chasm between them - when life begins. I'm not going to try to span that abyss, as it is my experience that this is an argument that cannot be conclusively won, by either side, as we all are convinced We are right and that They are wrong. Certainly this lady's not for turning, on this issue anyway, and I'm so glad that Deborah wrote her excellent post which encapsulates many of the reasons that abortion is morally permissible.

So, stepping away from the edge, let us instead examine the practical realities of the legality, or not, of abortion on demand.

Here are my points, feel free to agree or disagree as you will (as if I could stop you, hah!):

1. Unwanted pregnancies will occur

On this matter I agree with Mr Litterick; the crux of the debate about abortion is actually about sex. Specifically it is about controlling people's sexual antics, and putting forth a view that erroneously claims sex is only for pro-creation. For example, I read a comment somewhere recently which stated if a woman wasn't prepared to have a baby then she shouldn't have sex.*

The view that the act of physical love making should only occur for breeding purposes just totally denies human behaviour through all the long years of our history.** If sex was only to make babies then we wouldn't enjoy it so much. It would be a need rather than a want. I niether need nor want to know about the sex lives of pro-life advocates (or indeed anyone) but sometimes I am rather tempted to ask if they have ever had sex when the woman involved was pregnant, as that would somewhat go against the whole sex-is-for-baby-making-ONLY!!1!1! line...

We humans will have sex for reasons other than conceiving and as no form of contraception is 100% effective, I conclude that there will be unplanned pregnancies.

2. Abortion will therefore occur

Again, throughout human history** women have been aborting unwanted pregnancies. For most of our existence as a species this has involved great danger to the woman, both medically and in terms of social consequences. It has also meant the use of methods that aren't humane to either the woman or the fetus. And if you think a fetus is a life then you have a problem. There will never be absolutely no abortion, unless there is also no gin, no coathangers, no stairs, no backstreet abortionists, no herbal abortifacents, no hot baths, and no other countries who offer abortion on demand.

Hence surely it makes sense to make safe and legal abortions available to women who seek to terminate an unwanted pregnancy, regardless of their reason for doing so. If you limit their choice then some will still abort illegally, but in horrendous conditions and without any certainty of success.

3. Without safe and legal abortion women lose control of their bodies

3a. Forced pregnancies

I don't know that I even need to make much of an argument for this sub-point, surely? Those who oppose abortion generally find the idea of a forced abortion total anathema. I share their view, in regard to that, and find a forced pregnancy just as bad. But in a world without legal abortion on demand women will be compelled to give up their bodies for nine months (possibly more than once), suffer the ongoing biological impact of child-bearing, and always know in the back of their minds, even if they choose adoption, that they have a(nother) child out there somewhere. And referring back to point 2, how are we going to enforce the You Shall Carry To Term edict?

3b. If abortion was illegal what would we do to women who had one anyway?

What penalty would be suitable? If abortion is murder (and I don't think it is, but some reading this do) then what happens to the murderer? An eye for an eye? Life imprisonment? 20 years? 10?? Surely if a fetus is a full human life, equal to the woman carrying it, then why not lock her up and throw away the key?

And what about those who attempt abortion but fail? Are they attempted murderers and thus should be sentenced accordingly? While they are still pregnant then? Bring on the birthing units in Mt Eden.

3c. Exceptions for rape and medical reasons

On the whole I see these as a bit of a cop out. Both exceptions deny women the right to control their own bodies, as they have to have someone else agree they meet the criteria. There are also significant practical problems with the rape reason in terms of the level of proof of rape. I'm not going to go into that now, because I'm lazy and this is already too long, but I might spout about it in comments.

In conclusion

I'm not a philosopher and I've never studied logic. I suspect those who have can poke holes in my argument. But I believe the general premise is sound; even if you don't think a woman should have the right to control her body, it simply isn't practical to outlaw abortion, so let's make it as safe and available as possible.

* Hmmm, methinks this commenter may not be entirely up with the play on human biology. What about the man she has to have sex with in order for conception to occur? Does he have to be prepared to have a baby too? Or can he just have sex willy-nilly?

** > seven thousand years.