You might be able to call me something of a "single issue voter." I admitted very openly that I have not been following the Presidential election closely at all, but decided to vote for Obama when I found out how radically anti-abortion Sarah Palin was. Needless to say, I am pro-choice. I feel bad being a "single issue voter" but I feel a little better knowing how many people are also single issue voters on the same issue.
So for my first original commentary, I'd like to try to use some logic to argue for abortion remaining legal.
I must admit, I drives me absolutely bat-shit when people call abortion murder. It was even once vehemently argued to me that abortion is so akin to murder that not only the mother, but also the physician who performed the procedure, should be tried on the same level as
...ahem.
Right, then. Let's get the logic started, shall we? Everyone argues that you can't call abortion murder because we haven't defined when life starts yet. Does it start at conception? Birth? Somewhere between? But, since that's what everyone talks about, I say that's boring, and I'm gonna attack you with a different angle of logic.
First of all, the Degrees of Murder.
Murder in the First Degree is defined as:
aforethought. Every murder perpetrated by poison, lying in wait, or
any other kind of willful, deliberate, malicious, and premeditated
killing"..."or
perpetrated from a premeditated design unlawfully and maliciously
to effect the death of any human being other than him who is
killed, is murder in the first degree."
In laymen's terms, what people generally think of as murder is first degree murder.
Murder in the Second Degree is defined as:
or a killing caused by dangerous conduct and the offender's obvious lack of concern for human life. Second-degree murder may best be viewed as the middle ground between first-degree murder and voluntary manslaughter."
For example, Dan comes home to find his wife in bed with Victor. At a stoplight the next day, Dan sees Victor riding in the passenger seat of a nearby car. Dan pulls out a gun and fires three shots into the car, missing Victor but killing the driver of the car. The driver of the car has become a victim of second degree murder.
Then, of course, we have Manslaughter, defined as:
malice. It is of two kinds:
-Voluntary: Upon a sudden quarrel or heat of passion.
-Involuntary: In the commission of an unlawful act not amounting
to a felony, or in the commission in an unlawful manner, or without
due caution and circumspection, of a lawful act which might produce
death."
Voluntary Manslaughter is intentional killing, but with no prior intent to kill. For example, Dan comes home to find his wife in bed with Victor. In the heat of the moment, Dan picks up a golf club from next to the bed and strikes Victor in the head, killing him instantly. (This is where Larry The Cableguy's joke comes from. "Guns don't kill people, but husbands who come home early do.")
Involuntary Manslaughter is unintentional killing of a human being that results from recklessness or criminal negligence. For example, Dan comes home to find his wife in bed with Victor. Distraught, Dan heads to a local bar to drown his sorrows. After having five drinks, Dan jumps into his car and drives down the street at twice the posted speed limit, accidentally hitting and killing a pedestrian.
So, with the logic that abortion be legally defined as murder (we will cover what degree of murder/manslaughter abortion would be soon), any woman who has had a spontaneous abortion, i.e. a miscarriage or a stillbirth, has committed involuntary manslaughter and should be charged thusly. Considering that 10%-50% of all pregnancies end in spontaneous abortion, most of the time before the woman even knows she's pregnant, it is my suspicion that anyone would have a hard time bringing charges against them. (Many pregnancies end within hours of conception due to genetically inviable zygotes long before the woman is aware of her state. This makes numbers hard to pin down, thus the wide ranges in percentages.)
Now. By the definitions of murder, abortion is not murder. Plain and simple. According to the definitions, it just doesn't fit. You may not like it. I may not like it. Most of the world may not like it, but it is not murder. Because murder in the first and second degrees must have malicious intent, and I dare anyone to grow a big enough pair to accuse any woman who decides to have an abortion of doing so maliciously. Because, in fact, let's just define malicious real quick, while we're spelling things out logically:
2. Law. vicious, wanton, or mischievous in motivation or purpose.
...yeah. Sure. Women who have abortions aren't scared, or distraught, or concerned, or guilty. They're not pensive and worried about their future, or sad and regretful.
They're malicious.
I wish you could see me raise my eyebrow scathingly.
Now, one may be able to argue that abortion is voluntary manslaughter, but I am doubtful the legal definition will be easily changed to: "Upon a sudden quarrel, heat of passion or abortion." It just... doesn't seem to fit. Especially that part about "no prior intent." Because I sure hope that a lot of thought goes into whether or not to have an abortion, so I suppose that qualifies as "prior intent," but that brings us back to malicious... It's quite the cycle.
However, another key phrase in all the definitions of murder and manslaughter is human being or human life, which does indeed bring us back to the Old Reliable Argument for keeping abortion legal. Because, the fact is, we haven't agreed on when life begins. Even religious people can't decide; some say conception, but the Bible says the soul comes with "the first breath of life." So until we legally nail down when life begins, charging abortions on the grounds of murder will just not hold water. And it needs to be left to the scientific community to define life, not the religious community, since in America we have this lovely little thing called Separation of Church And State.
And I don't think anyone is arguing that abortion is second degree murder or involuntary manslaughter (except in the cases of spontaneous abortions, which we've already talked about) so I don't think I need to delve deeper into either of those.
But what really made my brain hurt was when this little girl told me that she believed physicians should receive harsher punishments for performing abortions than the women having them because they were breaking the Hippocratic Oath, even though she admitted that she knew literally nothing about it, including what it was called.
First, and most importantly, the Hippocratic Oath isn't a law! It's no where close to being involved in the legal system! Unless you can sue him for malpractice, if a doctor "breaks" the Hippocratic Oath, there is nothing you can legally do! (I apologize for all the exclamation points, but I really wanted to throw something at this girl's head when I had the chance...)
The Hippocratic Oath: Widely believed to be written by Hippocrates sometime in the 4th century BCE, it invokes ancient Greek deities, and is, well... ancient. (If you would like to read it, you need simply to Google "Hippocratic Oath" and you'll get several hits. It took me all of 30 seconds to find it.)
The Hippocratic Oath
While the original Hippocratic Oath (to reiterate: written in the 4th century BCE) spoke against abortion, things have changed. First of all, if women wanted to terminate unwanted pregnancies in THE FOURTH CENTURY BCE (have I sufficiently highlighted how old the original Hippocratic Oath was yet?) and still want to do the same today, don't you think we're doing something wrong? Seems to me that the problem isn't abortions; the problem is unwanted pregnancies. We need to focus on the problem, not the symptom.
However, as I was saying, the Hippocratic Oath is mostly just the phrase people recognize these days. What doctor's actually swear on varies from school to school.
I would like to focus on one of Lasagna's points:
My friend Carly, a pre-Med, took a Medical Terminology class last semester. The point which Lasagna is highlighting is called "prophylaxis," specifically defined in Carly's class's textbook as "a process or measure that prevents disease." Therefore, if a prophylactic (known in laymen's terms as birth control) is something that prevents disease, then apparently physicians define pregnancy as a disease.
For examble: A woman goes to the hospital with the following symptoms: troublesome digestive track including vomiting, diarrhea, abdominal pain and slight symptoms of malnutrition. The doctors remove a 12 inch mass from her body, and all the symptoms go away. What was removed? A fetus.
Or a tapeworm. Either way...
As defined by the American Heritage Dictionary:
n. Biology An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.
Sounds a lot like pregnancy, no? No wonder prophylactics prevent disease.
Now, even I admit that this argument is something of a stretch. But seriously? Pregnancy is no picnic. If one is not emotionally, mentally, physically, and monetarily stable and ready to deal with it, it's even worse. I feel bad for any woman who is pregnant before she's ready, but I feel even worse for a child born to a mother who's not ready to by a mother.
To add to my claim that abortion should remain perfectly legal, I bring the issue of prostitution in the United States, something else that is also frowned upon by many.
Prostitution is quoted as the oldest profession; the first You-Give-Me-Money-Or-Goods-For-The-Service-I-Render job. Obviously, a very desirable service to have survived so long. In certain counties of the state of Nevada, prostitution is legal. (Gasp!) Prostitutes are licensed, and regularly screened for diseases.
This clearly demonstrates that making something like prostitution, abortion, or even drug use illegal (sure marijuana is illegal--and that stops everyone from smoking it, right?) doesn't stop it from happening, it simply serves to drive it underground. (Perfect example: prohibition. That worked so well. /sarcasm.) Outlawing activities such as these makes them illicit, dirty, and dramatically unsafe. And I don't know about you, but I would rather have things like these legal and safe, than illegal and dangerous.
I would rather see an abortion clinic on every street corner, than see it be made illegal and hear stories of women throwing themselves down flights of stairs, or using clothes hangers or bike spokes in some shady apartment because they're desperate and scared and have no place else to go.
If abortion remains legal, we can continue to regulate it, putting forth laws, conditions, and terms under which abortion is acceptable. The most obvious being the instruments involved must be sterile and the procedure performed by a licensed professional. This may grow to included laws that limit how far into the pregnancy abortions can be preformed. For example, a fetus could potentially survive outside the womb after approximately 32 weeks of development. In my opinion, abortions performed this late into the pregnancy are unacceptable, unless carrying the fetus to term and/or birth would be detrimental to the fetus and/or carrier. But making abortion illegal will never make it go away. It's not something that makes me happy, but it is a fact I have accepted and so I want to make the best of it.
Instead of spending time and money trying to abolish abortion, I suggest that those who are pro-life spend time and money raising awareness on birth control--which includes scrapping "Abstinence Only" sex education in public schools, because that obviously doesn't work, Governor Palin--, or setting up safe-houses for single mothers.
Instead of making abortion illegal, make abortion unnecessary.
Sources:
Definitions of Murder/Manslaughter
The Hippocratic Oath And Wikipedia
Pro-Child
