Pro-Choice

After reading up on the political issues lately that separate the liberals from the conservatives in the current presidential race, I'm the most angered over the abortion debate. This very hot topic has been going on for way too long and has a very simple answer - but no one seems to be saying it. I have no idea why this has not been settled yet, aside from the fact that no one wants to be the one to draw the line in the sand. Well... I'll say it - I'll draw a line.

It frustrates me to no end about how pro-choicers are all about the woman's rights while leaving out the woman's responsibilities. I'm Pro-choice: If a woman doesn't want to have her body to go through a pregnancy... then she should choose to do everything in her power to not become pregnant in the first place. If a woman becomes pregnant and she doesn't want the child, she should choose to give birth to it and then give it up for adoption. The choice is not whether or not to terminate the pregnancy - it's the choice on whether or not to have sex, or it's the choice to keep or give away the baby. If you choose to have sex, then you take on the risk of becoming pregnant and that responsibility becomes yours to bring the child to full term and give birth to it. Case closed.

Ladies, FYI... ruining less than a year of your life to bring a baby into this world is a fair consequence for the act of doing something that you know may result in that very thing happening. There are too many good, loving couples in the world who are infertile and really want a child that they themselves can't have. Waiting lists for babies are a mile long, but would be shortened significantly if meaningless abortions weren't an option anymore and adoption was the only way to handle unwanted pregnancies.

I mean, come on! If you eat pizza, cake and ice cream by the pound at every meal every day - there's a very good chance you'll get fat. That's just the consequence of that action. You can't eat like that and then decide to opt out of the fat part with a quick procedure afterwards - you have to do the work to burn off the fat yourself, and that takes lots of time, energy, and sometimes lots of money. You don't get to choose NOT to gain weight when you eat like that. The choice is in whether or not you eat like that, or in whether or not you work to take the weight off. Why is it called liberation of women and supremacy of individualism when abortion is really just trying to avoid consequences? Are we as a society THAT lazy and self-consumed? Are we really that much of a God-less nation already - that terminating life is considered a right?
Now for the line in the sand. I do believe in moderation and exceptions. Here's the only three exceptions I believe should apply to this very simple solution:

Sometimes, it's not the woman's choice to have sex. Sometimes a pregnancy results from rape. In this case, even though I do believe the mother's life and health supersedes that of a human not yet fully formed - and I understand that rape is traumatic and that carrying a child would put the victim through more difficulty, I would still encourage any rape victim that got pregnant to carry their child to term and put that child up for adoption. Of course, HIV or AIDS can also be a horrible and detrimental by-product for a sex-crime victim, and in that case - I think attempted murder should also be added to the offender's crime list. But that's another topic.

(While I'm on the topic of rape - I think a man should be put in prison for life, if not given the death penalty, for rape. And that he and/or his family should pay for all the expenses and responsibility for the results of that rape, including medical and legal bills about pregnancy or adoption. People suffer for their family members' bad decisions all the time, and a family is as responsible for raising a person capable of rape as the person who raped is responsible for his actions of rape. Maybe it will be a higher deterrent of rape, if the penalties were shared around to people he loves or more strict on him personally for longer. If pregnancy or disease happens to the woman as a result, or even if therapy is needed (which is most probable), then the rape offender and his family should pay what ever medical bills or whatever comes as a result for that poor woman.)

An exception I would make is if there is something clearly wrong with the baby. Sometimes nature doesn't properly take it's course in miscarrying a child that is forming wrong. Every parent prays for a healthy baby, and do all they can to help save and bring to health an unhealthy baby. But I'm not talking about health as much as I am about mis-formation, babies born with major deformation or severely impaired with brain damage that would take away who they are. I'm talking about human beings who will never be able to live on their own or be able to do anything but be put in an institution to be cared for hand and foot, those who do not know who they are or anyone around them. I'm not saying it be mandatory, but only as an option to parents. As technology increases, we are able to see earlier on into the development of a pre-born baby. Some parents do not have the means to care for a child born in this condition, severe cases would not be adopted, and this person becomes a burden to the state, all the while the person is living but will never really have a life. In this case, if doctors can accurately predict a baby being developed wrong, even though I'd encourage prayer for healing at such a diagnoses, the option to terminate that pregnancy may just be the most merciful thing to offer the parents and the child. In heaven, this child is perfect. This is another situation where releasing the life to God where he/she can be whole and happy is better than making them simply exist through a lifetime of needless suffering in this world. But every situation belongs to God, and He can heal, so even then, I'd rely on God to correct the formation or take the child home.

Another exception would have to be in the case of the mother's health. As I stated before, I believe that the mother's life and health supersedes that of a human not yet formed. If the mother's health is at risk to carry the pregnancy to full term, and a C-section or other medical attempts are not going to work, and the choice comes down to one dies or they both die, then I think there should be an allowance for a termination of the pregnancy in that situation too.

Other than these exceptions, I can't see any reason why abortion would be legal or right. Where I draw the line in the sand may be too far one direction or another for some, since it's totally subjective. I don't have Scriptures to back up any of these points. I'm going by the Law of God that He's written on my heart. I know He's a merciful God as well as just - I know He's the Creator of all life, but I also know that God is well aware that sin causes a less than perfect situation in our human existence.

Speaking as a believer - if I were single and made the mistake of choosing to have sex, and I became pregnant when I didn't want to be, I would pray for God to change my heart, and my choice would be whether or not to keep the child after it was born or put him/her up for adoption. Since I'm married, if I chose to have sex without lots of protection and became pregnant and I didn't want the child, I would pray for God to change my heart, and my choice would be to change my attitude about the child. If married, I chose to have sex with double protection and I still became pregnant - well, that's just God stepping in and handing my husband and I something of His to take care of and I need to get in line with that.But since America is not made up entirely of believers, illegalization of meaningless abortion is how I would deal with this issue across the board. It seems like a no-brainer to me, and the fact that people try to attach it to a women's rights peg in the wall seems just plain stupid to me. If they are trying to level the playing field for men and women in the game of casual sex - I've got a better solution. How about both just wait until marriage to have sex?!?! And then if an accidental pregnancy occurs, count it as a happy accident and move on. Ok - knowing that the world doesn't live by the standards of God... how about the man who gets a woman pregnant has to pay for everything, has to completely support the woman all through the pregnancy. Back to women's liberation... that answer will make women cringe. Women don't want to have to be supported by a man. Understandable. So I'd tell them to not be in a position where she HAS to be supported by him, but that she just HAS to take his money throughout her pregnancy and as long as she keeps the child, because that's the price he's paying for choosing to have sex in the first place. (See... Pro-choice again. )This sounds a little more level to me! Save up the money and take a vacation or buy a new car - who cares, as long as someone is providing for the medical and nutritional expenses of the mother and child. The point is - people equate money with power, especially in a relationship where one person holds all the money which the other person needs. I'm suggesting purely money without power. No strings attached, no power plays or control or any rights of say from the man over the woman, just the money. Of course - as parents, there should be equal rights and say between both the mother and the father of the un-born baby - but that should be an entirely different and separate thing from the money the man should pay. And I digress into details.

The point is - if you choose to have sex, you are choosing the possibility of getting pregnant and carrying a child full-term physically and/or financially.  If you do get pregnant, it's your choice to keep the baby or give it away.