Patronising platitudes against abortion

Tripp Johnson, Guest Columnist

Discussions of pressing social issues as regards the rights of women and the rights of self-identified homosexuals have been more common in the public domain recently and, to paraphrase Peter Espeut, a regular contributor to the Gleaner, 'this public debate is good'.

However, in order to genuinely engage in a debate worthy of the name, and in order not to simply preach from one's own ideological pulpit, it is vital to actually engage with proponents of the opposing view and to apprehend their ideas, arguments and premises, rather than simply casting moralistic aspersions crafted on the basis of red herrings.

The Gleaner published on Friday, July 12, 2013, a column by Peter Espeut, Catholic deacon and sociologist, wherein he opposed the legitimacy of abortion as per the argument from viability.

Mr Espeut contended that "Once a baby is born - even after nine months in the womb - it cannot survive on its own; it is going to need parental support for many years. Should infanticide be made legal? Especially infants who may grow up to be criminals and a burden on the State?"

These remarks, which serve as an effective condensation of his conclusion on this issue, represent little more than what is known as a "red herring"; a logical fallacy which as a rhetorical device misleads or detracts from the issue at hand. This is a tool often employed by politicians and other ideologues. His irreverent reference to infanticide convoluted the discussion at hand by introducing an absurd hypothetical, while the premises leading up to said hypothetical implicitly assert the premises of his own argument (that life begins at conception), rather than factoring in the rationale of those that he would argue against. This is very clearly improper debate etiquette.

Leading up to his logically fallacious conclusion, Peter Espeut levels an indictment against our culture's hyper-individualistic and "fundamentally selfish approach to life" - we may agree on this point.

But, we diverge on matters of opinion pertaining to what may be defined as "selfish" and what may not. Surely, the choice to have an abortion could equally be classified as the most selfless choice. Allow me to make this exceedingly clear - "pro-abortionists" such as myself value life just as much, if not more, than those opposed to abortion.

The termination of a pregnancy can be an incredibly difficult and traumatic thing to do. I had a sister, her name was Cary, and she was diagnosed in the womb with Spina Bifida. Spina Bifida is a congenital disorder where the spine does not fully form. She also had water on her brain, and her kidneys had not nor were ever going to fully develop.

Carefully weighed discussions

Doctors had advised that, if brought to term and given birth to, Cary would have a short life that only knew excruciating pain. Following judicious, carefully weighed discussions, it was decided by the family that the most merciful, the most humane (albeit also so hard) thing to do in this case was to spare Cary that agony, and terminate the pregnancy. We visit her every year, eyes brimming with tears and hearts filled with sadness, at the cemetery where she is interred with the rest of the family.

Now, of course, my personal experience is a bit of an extenuating circumstance, and I should not wish to construe all abortions as being precipitated by such medically extenuating circumstances.

There are, however, countless studies demonstrating the role played by abortion in allowing a young woman (who may also be abandoned by her potential baby father, since HE has the prerogative of shirking responsibility on account of his non-existent uterus) to avoid falling into the same intergenerational poverty trap that would otherwise affect not just her, and not just her child either, but her child's progeny as well.

Such a decision, especially made within a societal context that partially defines womanhood through recourse to having children, is not just selfless, but courageous too.

The above should not be read as an endorsement of abortion as a form of regular birth control, but rather as supporting the legitimacy of abortion as a contingency plan for those who choose to have one. Obviously, other forms of birth control (such as condoms or the pill) would be preferable for those who become sexually active.

Educational programmes arguing strictly for abstinence until marriage have been shown time and again to result in higher teen pregnancy rates as well as higher rates of abortion. Thus, supplemental to the accessibility of birth control would need to be a truly comprehensive sexual education programme.

Regions deploying both rigorous and complete sex education programmes, while also strongly suggesting one practice abstinence, do record lower teen pregnancy and abortion rates (as well as lower incidence of STDs) than similar regions without sex ed.

The point of "pro-abortionists" such as myself is that viability is the most pragmatic requirement to use for these purposes. (It should also be noted that as technology advances, the "point of viability" reaches closer and closer to the point of conception).

One cannot help but read patronizing platitudes against abortion, offered by those who will never actually - can never actually - have a child as somewhat ironic. The (difficult) decision must be made by the woman who would carry the foetus to term, as well as the male responsible for the impregnation (if applicable).

It is quite easy to indirectly claim that the role of women is essentially that of an ambulatory sperm incubator, when all the claimant must do is plant the seed. It is much harder to relinquish one's personal moral convictions at the boundary where they would rightly end; the domain of other people's life choices.

Email feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com and wtg.tripp.johnson@gmail.com