An overdue post - Part I.

I'm sure you've seen Saw and it's 34982734 sequels.

Imagine that there is a chamber in which there are two people, strangers to each other. Person A is hooked up to some sort of guillotine, and Person B is strung up in a torture device. The game is that the Person A gets to live if, and only if, Person B bears their torture for a certain significant period of time. If Person B chooses to end their torture, Person A dies, and Person B gets to walk out of there alive and unharmed.

What would you do in such a situation?

Would you endure intense pain, potential permanent damage and the possibility of death for a perfect stranger? Do you think that you have an obligation to endure such pain for a perfect stranger, in such a circumstance? Is it immoral in your view NOT to endure such torture? What would you think of Person B for opting to walk away unharmed?

I would like you to answer these questions now, before I continue.

-

-

-

The scenario which I have outlined is a modified version of the circumstance I think that a woman who has an unwanted pregnancy is in, except that it is extremely questionable whether fetuses even feel pain during the first trimester (source).

I wouldn't ever dream of telling Person B that he/she must give up his/her well-being for Person A.

Would you?

"But wait", you say, "that's only one aspect of the issue! What about the fact that Person B (potential mother) caused Person A (fetus) to be in that situation?!"

This is the case of 'assuming responsibility'.

Now, typically, one is only asked to 'assume responsibility' if they are found to have done something wrong. I am not satisfied that sex resulting in an unwanted pregnancy is 'wrong'.

Furthermore, if we're talking about 'dealing with the consequences', the punishment should fit the crime. A 9-month pregnancy, potentially life-threatening labour, for the 'crime' of becoming pregnant accidentally?

That is vastly disproportionate. It is clear to me that anybody who would condemn a woman to involuntary motherhood, and all the horrors that entails, is least interested in 'justice', and most interested in controlling womens' reproductive rights.

Also, I would very much like to know in what way an unwanted pregnancy is a better situation than an abortion.

Does a traumatised woman and a child who is unwanted or put in foster care, really make the world a better place than if the child wasn't born in the first place? Really?

Unless every pro-lifer out there is willing to adopt a child out of a state care facility, or is willing to become a good foster parent, I don't feel that they have a leg to stand on. They are seeking to create an environment which they are then not willing to put in any effort in to make better.

The entire world would be better served if every cent that was put into anti-abortion campaigns was instead devoted to making contraception more affordable and readily available,  to teaching effective sex education in all our schools and also towards research to make contraception that is more reliable, and that has less side effects.

That, more than any pro-life campaign, would reduce the number of abortions.

However, barring some serious advancements in pregnancy-prevention technology, whether educated or not, whether contraception or not, unwanted pregnancies will continue to occur. And due to this fact, abortions will continue to occur.

Now, it's been observed that banning abortion does not actually reduce the abortion rates (source). Abortions continue to occur. Women continue to try and terminate their own pregnancies, or go to dodgy back-alley doctors and get very risky and life-threatening procedures performed.

If abortion does not reduce the number of fetuses dying; WHY BAN ABORTION?

If you are so concerned about the welfare of the fetus, shouldn't the fact that the legislation you are trying so hard to push does nothing to improve their 'plight' give you pause? Doesn't the fact that banning abortion leads to the same number of abortions being carried out, AND increases the risk of death for the mother, make you hesitate? If not, then I contend that your position is not "pro-life" at all, it is simply anti-choice, and anti-woman.

Shouldn't you be thinking long and hard about an issue that affects somebody else's body, before you churn out your pro-life rhetoric?

This is a very important point that I do not think the pro-choice campaign has publicised enough. It needs to be made public, very public, that banning abortion does not reduce abortion rates. If this is made common knowledge, then the pro-lifers are either going to have to change their stance, or have to be very up-front about what is an anti-woman agenda without being able to hide behind the whole "I value life!" bullshit.

To be continued...