Is abortion truly a 'human right' ?
The recent ruling of the US Supreme Court overruling the 1963 'Roe v Wade' judgement has been met with horror and not a little aggression by the so-called 'pro-choice' lobby. At the same time, the 'pro-life' lobby are ecstatic. Why is this ?
It seems to me that the 'pro-choice' side see abortion as being little more than an alternative to contraception in many cases, a way for those too careless or stupid to avoid conception in the first place to deal with the rsult of their actions. In some states it seems that this can apply even up to the days before a child would otherwis be delievered, something which seems little short of judicial murder. Of course, there are cases in which a pregnancy may result from criminal circumstances - incest, rape, or whatever, and also those in which it is clear that the foetus may be severely compromised - and such have to be protected against, but how many abortions relate to such instances out of the many thousands carried out every year ?
On the 'pro-life' side, the supposed rights of the foetus are promoted over and above all other considerations; is this reasonable ? In my view, it is not. A foetus is not viable until it has developed to at least 21 weeks, according to the latest medical science. That said, it may be that scientists in the future may develop artificial wombs - might it then be possible to find a way to protect and grow a foetus from a much earlier stage ? If such happens, at what age would a viable life be determined to truly begin ? In my view, this is akin 'to dancing on the head of a pin'.
We are in danger of venturing into the realm of the 'because I can, I must' science'. Such science often denies nature and even reality. If a child was to be grown in an artificial womb, what relationship would it have to its mother, or father ? Would it actually be truly human, or simply the product of a laboratory experiment ? I know that such questions are well beyond the current debate but this may well be where that debate will lead.
Quite simplistically, to use abortion as little more than a means of abortion is unacceptable; If a woman is too stupid, careless or plain lazy to use the assorted methods of contraception available before engaging in sexual activity, more fool her. That said, in past generations the father would have been tracked down and made to bear his share of the responsibility; today we have far better methods to identify such individuals - why do we not use them and ensure that they, not the woman or the state, share the costs and responsibilities of what was a joint action ?
To my simple mind, our world has become far too worried about calling a spade a spade and laying responsibilty where it belongs. Our masters seem to be more worried about causing offence to vociferous minorities than in doing what is right and supporting the largely silent, usually massive, majority. maen and women are responsible for their actions and have to accept responsibilty for them. If their actions result in a pregnancy, they must accept that too and not expect to be bailed out with some sort of all-inclusive, back-up insurance policy. Men can use condoms, women should insist on them, or use the Pill, diaphragm or coil; or perhaps they should all just be more self controlled and less libididinous.
Many years ago, a girl friend of mine became pregant because of our, or my stupidity. She didn't want the baby and had an abortion for which I paid. It was wrong. More recently, a young friend was stupid and became pregnant after a brief affair - she also had an abortion, again it was wrong. Both abortions were about convenience rather than anything else. Both were wrong and were a way of avoiding responsibilty for irresponsible acts.
Abortion isn't necessarily wrong in itself, but the freedom to access it on demand, in an age when there are so many ways to avoid pregnany in the first place, is.
