Written by David Starr   

Anti-abortionists, or "pro-lifers," pride themselves on being moral when it comes to the "A" word, i.e, abortion. They abhor the killing of a baby. But many of them support imperial wars where invading/occupying/bombing takes place in other lands, especially in the "Third World"; and where babies out of the womb-and infants-suffer the consequences. It's as though those children don't count.

Sanctions have also caused suffering among the young, Iraq being a prime example. As a result of the U.S./UN sanctions imposed on Iraq during the 1990s, about 500,000 children died from malnutrition, unsafe drinking water, etc. But I haven't heard any condemnation from "pro-lifers."

A "pro-lifer" would respond by saying, "Since you support abortion, you support the killing of babies." This can be challenged. There have been arguments about when life begins. "Pro-lifers" have said that it begins at conception. Actually, scientists have not concluded on when life begins. They do know that the fertilized egg is implanted in the womb a week after conception. Then there is "Quickening," when the foetus first moves in the womb. This is about 17 weeks after conception. ("When is the Foetus Alive?," BBC, Ethics)

One general view, "that best reflects the reality of the situation, is that there is no one point where life begins. Instead, the beginning of life is a continuous process. It may have a start where there is 'no life' and an end where there 'is life,' but there isn't a clearly defined boundary." ("When Does Life Begin," RationalWiki)

But if there are no brain waves or central nervous system present after fertilization, then there is no human existing.

A few other "pro-lifers" have said that life begins before conception. This can only mean that sperm is viewed as a form of life. If that's the case, then one could say that in the course of fertilization, 1000s upon 1000s of sperm die trying to reach the egg. This prompts the following absurd question: does this mean that reproduction should be illegal because of the death of all those sperm?

I'll bring up another absurd scenario: It's a fact that most males have masturbated sometimes during their lives. Does that mean then that there is the mass killing of sperm; perhaps the killing of half souls?

It could be said that death is a part of reproduction, if one wants to take it that far.

That is not to say that abortion should be the priority. It may have to be used as a last resort, e.g., in the case of rape or incest; if there is danger to the mother; and the threat of over population. (Earth's resources are finite, and I don't think "pro-lifers" would want to see a scenario of mass starvation if the population becomes too big. Or are they just ignoring this scenario?)

But also in the case of having an unwanted child. "Both unintended and unwanted childbearing can have negative health, social, and psychological consequences. Health problems include greater chances for illness and death for mother and child. In addition, such childbearing has been linked to a variety of social problems, including divorce, poverty, child abuse, and juvenile delinquency." (When Pregnancies are Unwanted," Nancy Felipe Russo, Ph.D., pro+choice forum)

There is adoption as an option, but it is not a cure-all. "Children may feel grief over the loss of a relationship with their birthparents and the loss of the cultural and family connections that would have existed with those parents. There can also be significant concerns about feeling abandoned and [feeling] 'not good enough...'" Adopted children may also suffer from a loss of access to important medical or genetic birth family histories." ("Long-Term Issues for the Adopted Child," Kathryn Patricelli, www.mentalhealth.net)

Further, "[a] study in the Western Journal of Nursing Research found that adoptive parents can experience 'post-adoption depression' when their expectations about the adoption experience aren't met. These parents often report difficulty bonding with the child. [I]n extreme cases, the adoption 'disrupts,' and the child is sent back to the agency or foster home. But "most adoptions work out," with "80 percent placements [making] it to legalization" and "after the paperwork is in, [there's a] success rate [of] 98 percent." ("The Dark Side of Adoptions: Why Parents and Kids Don't Bond," Stephanie Pappas, Live Science)

Before Roe v Wade, women desperately sought out a way to have an abortion. The procedure was secret with the risk of it being done in unsanitary conditions by an armchair "doctor." Or it would be self-induced. There was also a danger to the woman. After Roe v Wade, the procedure was/is done under sanitary conditions. Since there will be women who will seek out abortions, it may as well be done under these conditions. Or would the "pro-lifers" rather have Roe v Wade repealed and in turn go back to abortions being done in the back seat of a car, back ally or hotel room?

Then there is the matter of choice. It is a personal matter between husband and wife, boyfriend and girlfriend, and for a woman herself. And no "pro-lifer" has the right to butt in in such a personal matter (unless asked).

To avoid abortion as an option, the following should be promoted even further: birth control, along with family planning and courses in sex education. Knowledge is the key to understanding the ethics and necessity of keeping abortion legal, despite the stigma that is still prevalent in society.

A stigma imposed by "pro-lifers," who would rather shame a woman considering abortion rather than trying to understand why that option would be chosen.