The Solution to the Abortion Debate.

Artificial Womb

Artificial womb holding a baby to term

We have a fundamental problem in this country right now. Whose rights do we honor first when two people have similar claims? Abortion is a debate over such claims. Does the mother have the right to her body? Does the baby have right to his or her life? This is the question that has been unresolved now for many years.  The abortion debate is key to the current era of women’s rights. I am counting all the way back to the 1920s when Margaret Sanger kept getting arrested for mailing news letters and pamphlets on birth control. Back then it was a horrible cultural taboo to talk about diaphragms and condoms.  The Monty Python song “every sperm is sacred” was the rule of the land.

By our day even the majority of pro life fundies are ok with condoms and even the pill because it prevents abortion. The debate has shifted to focus on when life starts. I submit that this debate exists to justify the real argument, whose rights come first.

In civilization we live in communities of strangers and as such we sacrifice some of our fundamental rights for stability and security. We submit to the rules established by strangers in exchange for the ability to help select those strangers. We follow rules for driving, buying, selling, interaction, and traveling because it generally helps to keep things moving smoothly.  We also follow rules regarding our bodies and the bodies of others. We can not cause harm to another body without just cause. This is generally covered under self defense. But we can cause harm to another body if that body is not yet born.  So we try to justify it using ancient techniques of stripping rights from humans. We redefine them to inhuman status.

This presents our problem, whose rights become paramount? Mother, or child? This is where the artificial womb comes into play. Using this device both rights can be equally respected. The mother, should she need or want to abandon the pregnancy could do so with no harm to the child developing inside of her. She would go down to the clinic and have a fetal transplant.  She could go on with her life with total control of her body while the baby would complete its gestation and be put up for adoption. The baby might even be adopted before it has reached 9 months.

This would also apply to women who wanted to keep their babies but the baby caused complications that in current times would force a horrible choice of mother or child. This way the mother could survive the process and keep the baby.

I like compromise solutions. This one makes the most people happy. Yet some will still be unhappy. Some people champion abortion not as a woman’s rights issue but as population control. In fact early proponents of abortion were all for population control of those “unwanted” segments of population. (A lot of progressive era social programs were genocidal in nature) Still to this day some people see abortion as a good thing, some see the high number of black babies aborted and cheer that on.  Some see any unborn baby termination as a good thing simply because they fear over population (see a previous post where I debunk that)

For the most part, artificial wombs allow both mother and child to secure their rights and most of us can rest easy as a result. Solutions, we has them.

How Rape, Abortion, and Zimmerman show the general conflict in liberal ideology.

Too many times when a woman is raped, it’s because she put her self in a position to be attacked. Gasp, is this blogger blaming women for their own rape? No, I am not. But we must acknowledge that when some one, anyone is attacked, we have to ask what they were doing in a dangerous situation in the first place. Often feminists will be horrified at the suggestion that women made mistakes that lead up to them being attacked. After all, in today’s society, it’s never our own fault what happens to us. we are all just victims of other people, often powerful white men. </sarcasm>

This connects to the Zimmerman case because many people say Zimmerman was at fault for getting out of his car in the first place. Many agree that Trayvon was on top of Zimmerman, but Trayvon’s defenders point out that Zimmerman shouldn’t have been there in the first place. While this is a case that doesn’t attract a lot of Feminists to it, the argument to me seems identical to the rape argument. Why is the woman innocent, but the man guilty?  It’s about story line. The Zimmerman case is about a white guy (who is actually hispanic, but who cares about facts, its the emotions we are after) who killed a black child in cold blood (Facts, don’t use em). Once the seed of racism was planted, the tree of hate grew like a mighty oak.

How am I going to tie this into abortion? Like this! Abortion debate tends to center around 2 opposing extreme camps. Abortion on demand, up to the last moment of pregnancy, and no abortion under any circumstance. The two camps paint both sides in the worst possible light, and both camps commit acts of violence, even murder upon the other. It’s a gang war with the 70% of the population stuck in the middle. 

The pro choice extremists are very self centered. They think only of the right of the women to expel anyone from their body regardless of the cost of life. While the law allows for unquestioned abortions in the first trimester, and no abortion in the third, but to save the life of the mother, the second trimester has become the battle ground. Texas is the most active front in this battleground as of late. 

Generally by the second trimester the state laws require a good reason to terminate the baby, most often to safe the life of the mother, but it depends on the state. This seems way too late for a birth control abortion to me. This is just my opinion, but after 3 months, why are you now all of a sudden saying “I don’t want to be pregnant” you had a while to think about this. Abortions in the case of rape are one thing, but why wait 3 months for that? I can understand a woman not wanting to admit she was raped, this could cause a lot of problem. This could be an acceptable reason for abortion in the second trimester.  What about drug rape. Well, this bothers me. What kind of woman wakes up in a strange place and doesn’t stop to check if she had unwanted sex? Am I over thinking this? Are that many women that clueless about their own safety?

On the other side of the debate are the radcial pro lifers who wont even allow abortion to save the life of the mother.  This too is selifish but usually for theological reasons. Part of various dogmae is that God will punish everyone for the sins of the few. Well abortion is a sin in many faiths and these faithful fear being punished if others fail to toe the line. This is how pro life radicals are selfish. Others must obey so that they are not punished.

All around on the three subjects I have above listed there are people who ignore the facts, the data, the logic, the rational choice, and cling to the emotional. They don’t care what is reasonable, they only care about what feels rights. If their initial data was incorrect, everyone else was wrong, not them. This is a factor in society that says everyone must respect everyone elses rights, but the person demanding others respect him or her fails to respect others. The argument of: “You respect my rights, but you’re rights are immaterial to me”. Its a conundrum we must work to overcome.