Disclaimer: Given the public nature of this blog I am going to commence it with a warning that it discusses issues that some may find insulting to their moral or social code of life. I do not write to inform others of what their opinions should be, only to discuss and clarify my own thoughts on the subject. Any offence given is unintentional on this delicate topic.
Abortion is always one of those tricky topics to blog about. It's simply the kind of subject where people are so easily polarised in their opinions (pro-choice / pro-life) that nobody considers what the best choice for human life really is.
Since it's been brought up in the news with the new embryology bill, I may as well post some thoughts here. I think it's fair to say that I don't fall neatly into either category. Both sides have very powerful and persuasive arguments - if you believe in the sanctity of every human life, then no matter what the argument you're never going to approve of abortion, and no amount of sanctity of the human body is going to change your mind. If you believe that a woman's body is her own, and she has the right to eject anything from her body that is likely to effect her health and future happiness then no amount of ugly pictures of aborted foetuses is going to change your mind.
Personally I can't really discuss abortion without bringing up the subject of contraception as I feel the two are inextricably linked. After all, if the contraception is effective - and generally it is - then abortion would not be necessary in a large number of cases.
So why does contraception fail? I think the first and most popular excuse for failure is simply not using contraception at all. Why some people decide to take a dangerous chance in creating human life by not using contraception is a real mystery to me. What are common excuses? Alcohol? Passion? None of these are good enough excuses for the production of a new baby. Call it a foetus, a mistake, a collection of cells, whatever you want, but however you slice it that's a life you've just created. You can justify it's destruction, certainly, I'm not saying there aren't ways of explaining away the need to destroy life, but when there are ways of preventing it's conception, then why not use them? If you don't use them then you are directly responsible if a child is conceived, and directly responsible for it's abortion. And the destruction of human life, for any reason, is murder. So I understand the pro-life argument. I feel like there should be consequences for irresponsible action, and the government's desire to make abortion even easier to maintain, I feel, may well encourage the use of abortion as a form of contraception, instead of using it in "worst case scenarios" such as rape.
Having said that, as I just said I am in favour of the practice of abortion in cases where pregnancy was unavoidable. I am in favour of abortion in cases where the child will be born with an illness that will damage it's future happiness; Down's, Spina Bifida and so on. The increasing pressure on the government to change euphanasia laws seems to suggest that people living with illnesses that are causing the deterioration of their mind or body do not wish to live through life suffering. Why anyone would choose to knowingly allow their child to be born with such a condition is cruel and unusual. I am also in favour of abortion in cases where the birth of the child will result in the death or suffering of the mother. I do not believe in the exchange of one life for another.
I think the problem is that we already take abortion far too lightly. Parents will storm the Headteacher's office demanding that their innocent little ones should not be hearing about sexual education, and that their scouts shouldn't be given contraception, and yet statistics show that the UK has an enormous underage pregnancy problem. Like it or not, our children are going to hear about sex, whether it's from their brothers and sisters, or classmates, or the television. And as soon as they hear that it's enjoyable, and a part of adulthood, as soon as they get those natural pubescent sexual urges, they're going to want to experiment. You can't "protect" them from sex when it's going to be coming at them from all directions, so you may as well make sure that learning about intercourse comes with a healthy dosage of learning about contraceptive methods, even if that does mean equipping 13 or 14 year olds with a rubber or two.
I suppose fundamentally as a young sexually active woman I just can't understand why it isn't possible to remain not-pregnant until such a time as one might want to conceive. I don't consider myself overly careful, I only use one method of contraception at any one time. I read the instructions on my pill packets, I use extra condoms whenever I'm on antibiotics, I do all the sensible things without going overboard, and unsurprising I've reached the ripe old age of almost 25 without getting pregnant. I believe that given the fact that contraception is FREE on the NHS that this should be possible for anyone from all walks of life. THEREFORE the abortion rate should not be rising, it shouldn't NEED to be made easier to get an abortion. What we need to do is start examining the way sexual education is taught in schools and promote the use of contraception even to those we feel are too young to be using it.
And, in the words of Forrest Gump, "That's all I have to say about that."
No comments:
Post a Comment