Jon's Soapbox
Thoughts on Human Fetal Abortions
(posted 09/06/21) - I have no emotional attachment to either side of the abortion argument as it pertains to ending life before birth. But I do have a strong opinion about who should have the final say as to whether to bring a fetus to term. It should be the woman growing the fetus from cells in her own body.
I have to fundamentally question the hubris of those who cry such tears and are so indignant over the loss of a potential human, while remaining (generally) insensitive to the poverty, suffering, and death of existing populations; through failure to support healthcare, civil-rights, education, and social safety-nets. Add to this an apathy about foreign policies that foment pre-emptory war and I believe they have lost any moral high-ground from which to argue.
It seems to me that religious certitude over "the sanctity of a human life" is too often used as justification for controlling the life path of women one doesn't know or even care about. There is just a feeling that "those people" shouldn't be able to have sex, become pregnant, and not have to produce and raise a child.
So the basic question someone like Salvatore J. Cordileone (Catholic Archbishop of San-Franciso) needs to answer is this: When you compare civil rights activism to anti-abortion activism do you even consider the civil rights of the pregnant women? Of course not (it was a rhetorical question). All anti-abortion arguments come down to saying "we want to control every woman's options so that she must carry a fetus to term." Other than a religious belief that a soul is being returned prematurely to wherever it is souls go, what argument can be presented against the right of a woman growing a fetus from her own body tissue to terminate that process (for any reason).
Literally tomes have been written about the ethical, legal, and medical externalities that are associated with human abortion. I won't even try to scratch the surface of such arguments and counter-arguments.
In the end only one thing strikes me as being pertinent: Should a woman be able to control what goes on inside her body? If you answer yes, then abortion is just an instance case. If you answer no, or a qualified no, then I immediately suspect you have a desire to exert control over women whose choices do not directly harm you.
This is analogous to the temperance movement that got a prohibition amendment passed. Look how well that turned out -- people continued drinking and illegal bootlegged liquor flowed at the same rate as pre-prohibition. Those were a tumultuous 13 years.
An anti-abortion stance comes down to saying "Human abortion hurts my sensibilities." My response is anti-abortion laws cause direct harm to the women seeking abortion services -- damn your sensibilities!
PS: Here's an interesting article that puts a lie to evangelical leadership's pure motives with regard to abortion. Link to The Guardian op Ed by Randall Balmer.