My Thoughts on Abortion
I believe that a woman has the right to have an abortion during the early phases of pregnancy, if she so chooses. At the same time, I personally dislike abortion outside of a few narrow circumstances, and hope that a girlfriend/wife of mine is never in the position of choosing to have an abortion. Additional information about my thoughts on this issue are below:
My General Thoughts on the Right to Abortion
I believe the right to abortion during the early phases of pregnancy is a fundamental right possessed by all women, regardless of marital status. I reach this conclusion using reasoning that is similar to the United State Supreme Court’s reasoning in the Roe v. Wade case. But the purpose of this article is not to restate longstanding jurisprudence; it is to state my views, so here goes:
Why I Support Abortion Rights:
1. I believe the Government has no right to invade the privacy of a woman’s uterus. There are few things more sacred, and more fundamentally private, than the right to have one’s internal organs not searched, seized, or controlled by the Government. This is not just my reasoning, but a central part of the Roe v. Wade reasoning. Basically, I believe that this right to privacy trumps the Government’s interest preventing abortions. Similarly, since the Government does not have the right to invade the privacy of a woman’s uterus, they cannot give this right to the woman’s spouse/parents/etc. In fact, I believe so strongly in this right to privacy, that I would be satisfied to resolve the abortion question without considering any further reasoning, but I’ll still list my other reasons below.
2. I believe that the Government should not be able to compel a woman to be an incubator for 9 months, and then to experience the life changing events of childbirth and child rearing. To be forced to continue an unwanted pregnancy would be similar to involuntary servitude. It would ride roughshod over the woman’s right to self determination, and the right to do as she wishes with her body. It would open the flood gates for further infringement on everyone’s right to be secure in their own body.
3. I believe that abortion is somewhere between a social good, and a very necessary evil, but either way, something that is needed. The right to abortion has allowed women the ability to enter the workplace, if they so choose. They are free to pursue education and careers, without having to worry that an unwanted pregnancy would affect such plans. A woman can choose to be sexually active, and know that if her birth control method(s) fail, she will not be forced to continue an unwanted pregnancy. A woman now need not worry that a rapist could cause her to become a mother against her wishes. Abortion also allows a woman to avoid bringing a child into the world that she does not feel she is able to support or raise properly. Indeed, many have credited abortion rights to a reduction in crime, as the unwanted children would often receive a poor upbringing, predisposing them to criminality.
4. I believe that a fetus in the early stages of pregnancy is not a “life,” and is therefore not something that the Government can protect at the expense of the woman’s wishes. I say this because a fetus in the early stages of pregnancy lacks the cognition, though processes, and even the physical characteristics of a human. It does not yet have a mind. Indeed, a dog, cat, cow, or pig has a more developed brain. Were we to declare such a fetus protectable, then I don’t see how we could continue to allow the killing of animals for food.
Basically, when I weigh the interests in the woman’s privacy, the woman’s autonomy, and the social need, against the interest in protecting a fetus, I reach the conclusion that the woman’s interest should prevail.
When I *Personally* Feel Abortion is Warranted
The above discussion of why I support abortion rights should not be confused with my personal beliefs about when abortion is the right choice. I *personally* believe abortion is proper only when reliable birth control method(s) have failed, or in the case of incest/rape. But those are my personal beliefs, and I would not dream of trying to impose them upon a woman, for the reasons listed above.
I personally feel that abortion is only warranted in those cases because of ease at which birth control can be acquired. It strikes me an negligent or reckless to not use reliable birth control methods, given the higher monetary, emotional, and medical costs which can accompany an abortion. It also strikes me as a moral wrong to be so callous with potential life, when birth control is such an easy alternative to abortions in most cases. But, I want to reiterate that my personal beliefs here do not trump the privacy and other interests of the woman, which is why I support abortion rights for all women, even if I personally feel they should have been more careful.
Conclusion
I support abortion rights for the various reasons above, with the most important reason being the woman’s right to privacy insofar as her uterus is concerned. I personally think that abortion is over used by many women, and that often they should have just used birth control to avoid the need for an abortion. However, my personal beliefs here do not trump the privacy and other interests of the woman, which is why I support abortion rights for all women, even if I personally feel they should have been more careful.

May 9th, 2009 at 10:12 pm
Questions:
At what defined point during pregnancy does an unborn viable human develop cognition and thought processes sufficient to differentiate it from pigs, cows, etc.? References, please.
By what authority does a pregnant human female (having privacy supremacy over her own body and it’s potential issue) force a society to provide funding for said body and either termination or continuation of said issue.
By what authority does a pregnant human female retain right to terminate potential issue without consultation or agreement of the sperm donor, yet obligate said sperm donor to providing at least eighteen years of support should female choose to pregnancy to issuance, also called live birth. Furthermore, female can have the same government she wanted to stay out of her reproduction now become intimately involved with the product of her reproductive activity.
Should not the sperm donor have some say in the continuation/termination decision? Possible arrangements could include: Maternal side wants termination, paternal side wants continuation – “Father” offers compensation equal to nine months salary of “Mother”. Mother signs away parental rights after delivery. “Father” solely responsible for issue. “Mother” may terminate up to signing of contract or legally set point in pregnancy (first trimester?), whichever comes first. Deliberate termination after signing or legally set point brings civil liabilities to be determined.
Maternal wants continuation, paternal wants termination – “Father” offers compensation equal to amount necessary to provide legal abortion. If “Mother” refuses, “Father” loses all parental rights, and will pay an amount, equal to the costs necessary to support a child for eighteen years. Payment may be made in monthly installments to Child Protective Services. Obligated amount may be reduced in amount by “Father” agreeing to vasectomy, or eliminated altogether by either chemical or physical castration.
May 10th, 2009 at 7:20 am
Michael,
That is a question for which I don’t know the answer off the top off my head. However it seems irrelevant, since the issue is abortion rights *before* viability.
I never said that there is a right to have a government funded abortion. In fact, the Supreme Court made clear that just because the right to abortion exists, that doesn’t mean that there is a corresponding right to have the government pay for that abortion. However as a practical matter, I would be in favor of funding abortions with taxpayer money, if only because it is much less expensive to pay for an abortion than to pay for welfare, and aborting unwanted fetuses seems to be correlated with reductions in crime rates. Such funds are a drop in the bucket compared to other wastes of money (e.g. the Iraq war.)
The woman’s body and autonomy are at issue. As such, she need not get permission from the would-be father, or the government. As the Supreme Court has made clear, since the government lacks the ability to prevent the woman from having a pre-viability abortion, it certainly can’t delegate that ability to the would-be father. If the would-be father does not wish to run the risk of financial obligation, then he need only not have sexual intercourse with the woman, or use reliable contraceptives. In this day and age, unwanted pregnancies are virtually entirely preventable.
The government has no obligation to provide welfare funds, but has chosen to do so. If congress wants to repeal such laws, they are free to do so. I’m actually not a fan of welfare myself, and wouldn’t mind a major overhaul of the system…
No. As I mentioned above, abortion rights are centered upon the woman’s right to control her body, and to be free from interference with her autonomy and privacy. The government lacks the ability to infringe that woman’s rights, at least until viability. As such, it can’t give a right that it doesn’t have to some other citizen (just as I have no right to go sell your car, and as such I can’t give that right to my neighbor, since I can’t give away something I don’t myself own.)
This arrangement smacks of involuntary servitude (which is unconstitutional). Also it ignores the fact that there is more to a pregnancy than the potential loss of income for the woman. Pregnancy is a somewhat dangerous, life-changing process. There is also great risk of duress and other factors which would render such a hypothetical contract unenforceable in court.
This suggestion truly shocks my conscience. We as a country, until as late as the 60′s/70′s, practiced involuntary and/or coerced sterilization, with terrible results and great injustice. Bringing that back into our legal system would be a terrible step backwards in our march towards justice.
Addressing your suggestion itself, I would note that reducing the child support amount if the father agrees to sterilization does nothing to benefit the child or mother, and is therefore unjust. Why should child A receive less child support because his father got sterilized, while child B get the full amount because his father chose not to be sterilized?
Note that the father has no legal right to decide what will or will not happen with the pregnancy. If he didn’t want to be involved in that situation, he should have ensured reliable contraception was being used.
May 12th, 2009 at 3:37 pm
First, my comments are intended to provoke conversation. Indeed, in some of them I’m playing Devil’s advocate. I am trying to draw out your position on this issue, not provide mine. With that in mind…
“That is a question for which I don’t know the answer off the top off my head. However it seems irrelevant, since the issue is abortion rights *before* viability.”
At what point can we determine “viability” to have commenced? Is it at conception, 3 months, “birth” or some point in between? Leaving this ambiguous is a cop-out. If you would argue your position, define your terms, please counselor
If we agree that in rape, the women’s privacy was immediately violated, and that in consensual sexual intercourse there is an agreed sharing of that privacy, with the knowledge that pregnancy may result despite use of contraception, can we proceed to ask when viability occurs?
Is this the ability to live without umbilical support, or the support of advanced medical technology? This could lead to the termination of “live birth but needing life support” infants possibly being termed an abortion.
I included the possible courses of action regarding the father, government, etc., not because I believe in them, but because I do believe in the Laws of Unintended Consequences.
Just as the framers of the Bill of Rights could not foresee how combining two separate, but similar (at least to them) amendments into one (called the second amendment) could lead to such legal drama, so many would take one position or another on abortion without out figuring out various possible consequences.
And remember, our Congress passed a three quarter trillion dollar spending bill without reading it. Lawmakers will rush in where angels fear to tread. Let us take time to think this through.
Regards,
Michael
May 12th, 2009 at 4:31 pm
As regards the sperm donor being obligated to provide contraception, is this solely the sperm donor’s obligation, or is it shared?
Leaving abstinence out of the equation, there is no 100% certain form of contraception. If sperm donor provides, and contraception is used, and pregnancy occurs, to what extent is sperm donors obligation to any issue of sexual intercourse?
A woman has the right to privacy and supremacy over her own body. Does her right to such allow her to obligate others (the father and society for example) to provide support, both monetary and otherwise?
Can an argument be made for abortion being mandatory for females unable to prove ability/capability to support (at least financially) a child? Draconian, even fascist.
Another suggestion might be implanting birth control into all females (regardless of race, ethnicity, socioeconomic background) between the ages of 12 and 21. Along with drinking alcohol, a woman would gain the right to reproduce at the age of majority. What consequences?
Should all males (again regardless of race, ethnicity, socioeconomic background) between the ages of 12 and 21 have a reversible vasectomy?
If a society can be obligated to provide services and support, can that society it’s ability to be obligated?
Why is a woman’s supremacy over her own body reduced once the fetus becomes “viable?” If a person’s rights are to be reduced, shouldn’t there be a definable point? If that point is live birth, then the argument can be made that at any point prior, what is being removed is an unwanted body part. Yet you have stated you think it is some point prior to this, without saying when. Please say when it is, and what leads you to believe it is so.
May 12th, 2009 at 7:46 pm
Michael,
First, my apology on the delay in responding to your last set of remarks. My response is now below:
I would say that the responsibility to use contraceptives is a shared one, and anyone who does not use contraceptives is undertaking the risk of pregnancy. Since contraceptives are not 100% effective, even if they are used properly, both parties are undertaking the risk of pregnancy.
A woman’s right to privacy and control over her body is indeed supreme. That right of hers does not obligate others to pay for her children. Instead, a father of a child is obligated because he chose to engage in sexual intercourse that could cause a child to be born. Society is not obligated, but has instead chosen to provide funding for poor women and their children. Such funding is not a right, but something we as a society have chosen to provide.
Forced abortions are unconstitutional violations of the woman’s right to privacy and bodily integrity. So to is the idea of forced birth control, for men or women. I won’t dredge up the case law citations here, but the basic idea is that reproductive freedom is a core part of our basic human rights, which cannot be infringed like this.
A woman’s supremacy over her body is not reduced once the fetus becomes viable; instead, the fetus gains certain human rights at that point, and those two sets of rights must be balanced. The balance that the courts have reached is that the pregnancy cannot be terminated after viability, except to preserve the life or health of the woman.
May 12th, 2009 at 8:40 pm
Thank you for responding. I respect your opinion, and seek collegial discourse (in other words, getting a legal opinion without being billed for it). Best of luck on finals, and with moving.
Michael
May 12th, 2009 at 9:30 pm
Michael,
Thank you for the enjoyable discussion as well. I’m always up for debate, and find that doing so is essential to the development of one’s ideas and beliefs.
August 13th, 2009 at 1:51 pm
“I believe that a fetus in the early stages of pregnancy is not a “life,” and is therefore not something that the Government can protect at the expense of the woman’s wishes.”
This is the core upon which all else hangs. If the fetus IS a life, it has rights, and then it is a competition of rights between the mother’s right to self-control/internal organ seizure etc and the unborn’s rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
It is a very weightly judgment to say at what stage a human is or is not “a life.” Some regard severely mentally incapacitated individuals to be less than human. Others certain races. The point is that erring on the side of caution seems appropriate here.
Viability seems arbitrary. Many people are not viable on their own, and never will be (elderly, sick) – do they lose their rights?
A VERY weighty judgment.
April 19th, 2010 at 5:29 pm
Questions:
At what defined point during pregnancy does an unborn viable human develop cognition and thought processes sufficient to differentiate it from pigs, cows, etc.? References, please.
By what authority does a pregnant human female (having privacy supremacy over her own body and it’s potential issue) force a society to provide funding for said body and either termination or continuation of said issue.
By what authority does a pregnant human female retain right to terminate potential issue without consultation or agreement of the sperm donor, yet obligate said sperm donor to providing at least eighteen years of support should female choose to pregnancy to issuance, also called live birth. Furthermore, female can have the same government she wanted to stay out of her reproduction now become intimately involved with the product of her reproductive activity.
Should not the sperm donor have some say in the continuation/termination decision? Possible arrangements could include: Maternal side wants termination, paternal side wants continuation – “Father” offers compensation equal to nine months salary of “Mother”. Mother signs away parental rights after delivery. “Father” solely responsible for issue. “Mother” may terminate up to signing of contract or legally set point in pregnancy (first trimester?), whichever comes first. Deliberate termination after signing or legally set point brings civil liabilities to be determined.
Maternal wants continuation, paternal wants termination – “Father” offers compensation equal to amount necessary to provide legal abortion. If “Mother” refuses, “Father” loses all parental rights, and will pay an amount, equal to the costs necessary to support a child for eighteen years. Payment may be made in monthly installments to Child Protective Services. Obligated amount may be reduced in amount by “Father” agreeing to vasectomy, or eliminated altogether by either chemical or physical castration.
May 28th, 2010 at 7:10 am
First, my comments are intended to provoke conversation. Indeed, in some of them I’m playing Devil’s advocate. I am trying to draw out your position on this issue, not provide mine. With that in mind…
“That is a question for which I don’t know the answer off the top off my head. However it seems irrelevant, since the issue is abortion rights *before* viability.”
At what point can we determine “viability” to have commenced? Is it at conception, 3 months, “birth” or some point in between? Leaving this ambiguous is a cop-out. If you would argue your position, define your terms, please counselor
If we agree that in rape, the women’s privacy was immediately violated, and that in consensual sexual intercourse there is an agreed sharing of that privacy, with the knowledge that pregnancy may result despite use of contraception, can we proceed to ask when viability occurs?
Is this the ability to live without umbilical support, or the support of advanced medical technology? This could lead to the termination of “live birth but needing life support” infants possibly being termed an abortion.
I included the possible courses of action regarding the father, government, etc., not because I believe in them, but because I do believe in the Laws of Unintended Consequences.
Just as the framers of the Bill of Rights could not foresee how combining two separate, but similar (at least to them) amendments into one (called the second amendment) could lead to such legal drama, so many would take one position or another on abortion without out figuring out various possible consequences.
And remember, our Congress passed a three quarter trillion dollar spending bill without reading it. Lawmakers will rush in where angels fear to tread. Let us take time to think this through.
Regards,
Michael
June 1st, 2010 at 5:08 am
Michael,
That is a question for which I don’t know the answer off the top off my head. However it seems irrelevant, since the issue is abortion rights *before* viability.
I never said that there is a right to have a government funded abortion. In fact, the Supreme Court made clear that just because the right to abortion exists, that doesn’t mean that there is a corresponding right to have the government pay for that abortion. However as a practical matter, I would be in favor of funding abortions with taxpayer money, if only because it is much less expensive to pay for an abortion than to pay for welfare, and aborting unwanted fetuses seems to be correlated with reductions in crime rates. Such funds are a drop in the bucket compared to other wastes of money (e.g. the Iraq war.)
The woman’s body and autonomy are at issue. As such, she need not get permission from the would-be father, or the government. As the Supreme Court has made clear, since the government lacks the ability to prevent the woman from having a pre-viability abortion, it certainly can’t delegate that ability to the would-be father. If the would-be father does not wish to run the risk of financial obligation, then he need only not have sexual intercourse with the woman, or use reliable contraceptives. In this day and age, unwanted pregnancies are virtually entirely preventable.
The government has no obligation to provide welfare funds, but has chosen to do so. If congress wants to repeal such laws, they are free to do so. I’m actually not a fan of welfare myself, and wouldn’t mind a major overhaul of the system…
No. As I mentioned above, abortion rights are centered upon the woman’s right to control her body, and to be free from interference with her autonomy and privacy. The government lacks the ability to infringe that woman’s rights, at least until viability. As such, it can’t give a right that it doesn’t have to some other citizen (just as I have no right to go sell your car, and as such I can’t give that right to my neighbor, since I can’t give away something I don’t myself own.)
This arrangement smacks of involuntary servitude (which is unconstitutional). Also it ignores the fact that there is more to a pregnancy than the potential loss of income for the woman. Pregnancy is a somewhat dangerous, life-changing process. There is also great risk of duress and other factors which would render such a hypothetical contract unenforceable in court.
This suggestion truly shocks my conscience. We as a country, until as late as the 60′s/70′s, practiced involuntary and/or coerced sterilization, with terrible results and great injustice. Bringing that back into our legal system would be a terrible step backwards in our march towards justice.
Addressing your suggestion itself, I would note that reducing the child support amount if the father agrees to sterilization does nothing to benefit the child or mother, and is therefore unjust. Why should child A receive less child support because his father got sterilized, while child B get the full amount because his father chose not to be sterilized?
Note that the father has no legal right to decide what will or will not happen with the pregnancy. If he didn’t want to be involved in that situation, he should have ensured reliable contraception was being used.