Guest Column by Mavis Sayman Korsman
I remember how excited I was when I felt the kick of my first child, when I was 18 weeks pregnant. The ultrasound had shown movement of babies’ arms and legs already at 12 weeks, but it wasn’t for another six weeks that I could actually feel him inside.
Feeling that little baby move made it all so real to me. And indeed, it was real. From the moment of conception, human life was present inside me.
Science and medicine have shown that just four weeks after conception, there is a heartbeat. This life is a continuum of growth and development right into adulthood.
Pro-abortionists prefer to use the term “fetus,” and granted, that is the technical medical term for the first 40 weeks or so of human life. But think about it. There really is a baby inside. An expectant mother doesn’t tell her friends and family about the first kick she felt from her “fetus.” No, she talks excitedly about her “baby” kicking.
The pro-abortionists find it easier to say fetus, rather than baby, maybe because aborting a fetus sounds better than aborting a baby. In many states abortions are legal up to the first 20 weeks, and some even allow them up to 24 weeks. That is well beyond the point in which a mother can feel the life inside her moving.
Some make abortion a religious argument and say that pro-life groups are pushing their religion on others. However, one does not have to be religious to be pro-life.
One need only consider the history of our country: centuries ago, our Founding Fathers in their wisdom stated quite simply but profoundly that all men are created equal and that we all have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Destroying a life in the womb, takes away all of those rights at the get-go from that helpless little individual.
Others try to make abortion a political argument, blaming Republicans for taking away women’s rights. However, this need not be a finger pointing game. There are many pro-life Democrats: U.P. Representative Bart Stupak was one of them.
This is simply about innocent babies’ right to live. As for women’s rights, yes, we need to protect women, too. Having an abortion puts women at risk of experiencing mental anguish. Twenty-one years after Roe v. Wade, none other than Ms. Roe (Norma McCorvey) herself, feeling the guilt of her role in the legalization, became pro-life. Today, she is one of the most ardent supporters of the pro-life movement: a testament that people can change.
In the case of unwanted pregnancies such as Ms. McCorvey’s, adoption is the perfect “choice.” The baby gets to choose to live, and the mother does not have to endure the resulting grief. The wonderful bonus outcome here is that a loving couple who has been waiting to nurture and share their love, gets that opportunity with a newly adopted baby.
I can understand why many say abortion should be allowed in cases of rape and incest, because these crimes are so terribly horrible. Still, I cannot believe that the innocent babies should be the ones punished, especially when adoption is available.
According to the Center for Disease Control, more than 50 million (and counting) abortions have been performed since Roe vs. Wade. That is such an unfathomable number, and it seems an impossible effort to stem the tide.
I do not expect to change anyone’s mind regarding abortion, but I still have that small hope that maybe someday more mothers will choose adoption over abortion. As Dr. Seuss wrote, “A person’s a person, no matter how small.” Shouldn’t that small individual have the right to live?
Nick • Nov 16, 2011 at 5:14 pm
While I am vehemently pro choice, I have to say I commend you for this article, you didn’t attack pro choicers (well until you used the term pro abortion). I commend those that focus more on giving women options and not simply stating that we must make abortion illegal in every sense of the term. I can only imagine how difficult it would be to grow and birth a child and then give that child away. I’m going to end my comment with a quote by Florynce Kennedy that I always find relevant to the abortion debate;
“If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament.”
Monica • Nov 13, 2011 at 6:23 pm
*Contraceptives, not “contraceptions.” I swear I caught that while reviewing my comment, but guess not.
Monica • Nov 13, 2011 at 5:54 pm
I admire your appreciation for human life at such a small stage. However, I will continue to support women’s right to choose. If a woman who is struggling financially or emotionally, or is perhaps not prepared to raise a child, decides to continue with pregnancy and give the baby up for adoption, that’s an admirable, even brave decision. But every woman should be able to decide what to do with her own body.
Let me make my stance on the abortion issue a little more personal. I’ve never been pregnant, but I have given great thought to what actions I would take should that ever happen unexpectedly. Choosing to keep, abort, or give away my hypothetical baby would probably be one of the most difficult decisions of my life by far. Considering that my college education will be coming to an end not terribly far from now, that I’m emotionally stable enough, and additionally that I would have support from my boyfriend and some family members, there’s a possibility I would choose to let the baby live and raise it on my own. That said, I’ve also dealt with serious depression and other issues, and at those times, I actually had nightmares about becoming pregnant, because it wasn’t something I was prepared to handle. I can truly say that I wouldn’t have been psychologically able to handle being pregnant as well as I would be today, and giving away my own (hypothetical) baby wouldn’t be simple, either. My case is a rather mild example; I’m sure there are plenty of women who struggle with even deeper problems.
Regardless of that, I’m still strongly in favor of pro-choice. Part of your article that I find concerning is the usage of both terms “pro-choice” and “pro-abortionist” as if the two are completely interchangeable. Echoing what I said in the previous paragraph, my views on abortion are irrelevant to whether I believe all women in America should be given the right to choose what to do with their bodies. Being pro-choice does not necessarily mean I’m strongly in favor of abortions (or otherwise). “Choice” is the key word in this issue.
I’ll admit I’ve never before heard of Norma McCorvey and her change in beliefs on the abortion issue, but using her as an argument against the pro-choice movement is questionable in its effectiveness. A single person’s beliefs, regardless of fame or involvement in something as significant as Roe v. Wade, should not set an example for all people. Just because McCorvey had a change of heart about women’s rights does not mean that I will do the same or that I am blind to the fact that abortion means ending a fetus’s life.
Also, I’m strongly, strongly in favor of allowing those who have been raped or committed incest the right to choose abortion. To be pregnant for 9 months, while perhaps an easy task for some, may be especially emotionally taxing, for instance, on a young woman who has been raped by her own father. Recently I read something along the lines of a pro-life supporter stating that merely 1% of women who have abortions fall under the category of being raped or having committed incest (CNN.com, I think?). The supporter used this small statistic to actually defend the desire to forbid abortion in the case of rape/incest, as if that 1% of women who have abortions is too small of a number for their problems to be relevant. I found that implication shocking and offensive, among other things.
When voters in Mississippi voted against the “Personhood” amendment, I was honestly a little surprised. Given that the state is historically conservative and the movement garnered political supporters from both major parties, I thought for sure that the state would vote in favor of awarding fetuses and even fertilized eggs the same basic “rights” as a person. What concerned me about the law being passed was not just that Mississippi women would lose the right to choose but also the vagueness of the law itself. From what I’ve read, “Personhood” would technically forbid the usage of certain birth control and even make in vitro fertilization more difficult, as throwing away eggs would essentially be somewhere along the lines of murder. In general, when discussing different stages of fetal development, things can get rather blurry and vague when comparing the rights of said fetuses/eggs/”innocent babies”/whatever to the rights of an already developed human being.
I should probably start summing up my response now. Basically, I don’t agree or disagree with your points about considering the importance of a fetus and encouraging pregnant mothers to consider adoption instead of abortion. What I disagree with, and strongly so, is the insistence that women should not have the right to choose. Honestly, I don’t exactly have the proper knowledge to predict how outlawing abortion would impact society, but I can still guess that there would be many, many negative outcomes. Let me think of some (again, these are predictions and not facts): improper, dangerous abortions; more women committing suicide; serious health complications from women who battle drug abuse and alcoholism while pregnant; further emotional complications due to having a baby against one’s will; a huge spike in population (see your article’s statistic about 50 million aborted babies since Roe vs. Wade: what would happen if those babies were all alive now?); decrease in level of education due to increase in high school pregnancies (note: I’ve met a handful of young, determined mothers at NMU, but this is not always the case); and other complications from women who are not physically fit to give birth, which was the subject of a recent North Wind article.
Perhaps some sort of compromise can be reached between people who are pro-life and pro-choice (excuse me, pro-abortionists—because I love abortions!), such as promoting safe sex education in high schools, making certain contraceptions such as birth control more accessible, and providing women support from a trained professional with thorough education about all possible options—yes, including adoption. I just don’t think that by encouraging pregnant women to give up their baby for adoption we should thereby strip women of their rights as well.