The abortion contortion

title partially stolen. =D
Ok, so yesterday's post stirred up quite a bit of strife. I want to personally thank Jeff, who was the only one of my friends to actually post his comments for others to see. Everyone else berated me in private. The conclusion that I came to? Everyone thinks that compromise is the answer...as long as it is everyone one else who is doing the compromising. No wonder the divorce rate is nearing 70%.
Since the bulk of the angry statements were about abortion, I thought it would be fun to dive in a little deeper. To see how well this works, please note that as of 5:55 this morning, the number of Facebook friends that I have is 241. I suspect it will change as the day progresses....
I am the first to say that I have no clue where I stand on Abortion. Somewhere in the middle of the bell curve, for sure, but exactly where I stand really can't be nailed down. I don't know why, perhaps because I really do see validity in almost every argument. At the same time, I get angry at every argument. So, if you ever wondered what a schozophrenic blogger would look like, you need to look no further. This post WILL be psycho, as I make statements and then disagree with myself....
As I stated yesterday, I'd like both camps to compromise. A fair compromise (to me, but no one else, apparently) would be to make abortion easily accessible for cases of rape, incest, fetal genetic disorders, or when the pregnancy threatens the life of the mother. The compromise is that abortion would NOT be easily accessible for those who simply think it is an alternative birth-control method (down to 240 friends already...LOL).
I was told by my friends from both camps that this is an unacceptable compromise. The problem is that both camps look at this issue as either a fundamental right (which means all or nothing) or as a fundamental 'sin' (which also means all or nothing).
I have heard arguments on both sides. I have even argued for certain points on both sides. Ultimately, I don't believe that this is a politcal argument about 'choice' as much as it is a social argument about 'responsibility.' (239, I'm guessing).
Do I believe that abortion kills a baby? yes. Do I believe that some pregnancies could destroy the life of the mother? yes. The arguments here get so bitter, that it concerns me. If a woman has been sexually assaulted, I can't imagine the torture of having to carry that baby to term and then have to face the incarnate form of your worst nightmare. Still, I know of no other violent crimes where part of the healing process involves killing one of the victims. This is why I stand in the area of comprmise. The emotional well-being of the life in front of me (the raped woman) HAS to bear some weight upon the argument. The same holds true for a woman whose life is jeopardized by the pregnancy. It is a choice that no one should ever have to make. BUT, if it was my wife's life in danger, make no mistake, that I would not lose my wife to a situation that could potentially end in the loss of both mother and child. The risk is too great. If that makes me a murderer, then so be it.
The flip side of the coin, requires the same hard compromises. A woman's right to her own body is about as fundamental as any right can get. And yet, excluding the situations listed above, pregnancy, in 2010, IS a choice. There are more contraceptive choices on the market today than ever before...and yet unwanted pregnancies rise. This is why I argue this is not a question of choice, it is a question of responsibility. If you don't want to get pregnant, take a pill...get a shot...use a gel...get an IUD...use condoms. If a woman doesn't want to take the responsibility for her actions, I have a problem with allwoing her to just kill the afore-known result of her irresponsible actions (I'm betting I'm down to 231, on that point).
Now, before I'm crucified by the pro-choicers for that statement, let me quickly turn back to the pro-life crowd, primarily the religious-right: Much of the abortion problem is a direct result of the failure of the Church. Abstinence works. But the cold-hard truth is that many, if not most people are NOT going to abstain. And I'm talking about people WITHIN the Church. I don't know that I have EVER belonged to a church for an extended period of time that did not have an "unwed mother accident." Often, these go un-noticed. They go un-noticed because the woman gets an abortion, rather than to face the shunning of other church members. If the church really wants to make a difference in unplanned pregnancies, there are two things that need to be done: 1. Help people who have made mistakes instead of ostracizing them (for SURE, I lost 3 or 4 more there). PEOPLE make mistakes...isn't that why we NEED the church, because we have ALL sinned and fallen short of the glory of God?!? How quick we are to judge others. And rather than facing the condemnation of others, many choose to end the pregnancy, privately, so that they can continue to be accepted by people who don't understand acceptance. One 'unforgivable' mistake to try to cover up another, lesser mistake.
2. Lose the fear of educating young people to the consequences and choices. Yes, I believe that abstinence is the perfect solution (100% effective against pregnancy). But not everyone will abstain. So the tough choice is: do we teach them, and risk being accused of putting our 'seal of approval 'on teen sex by doing so, or do we pretend that everyone will just abstain and then hope for the best?
Mature discussions need to happen on both sides of this argument, and compromise is possible. But both sides have to be able to let go of absolutes and accept that, sometimes, what seems to be an unacceptable compromise inadvertantly does more good for more people....and isn't that the goal that we all have?