follow-up as promised

In the world divided between liberals and conservatives, Republicans and Democrats, right-wing and left-wing, stances on abortion are divided into "pro-life" and "pro-choice." While my personal and religious beliefs put me firmly into the "pro-life" camp, I always appreciated my Dad's comments that we are also "pro-choice." The choice to have pre-marital sex, protected or not; the choice to keep or adopt. Choices in our family were defined by responsibility and accountability.

The doctrine of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (my church, if you didn't know), is pretty clear on this issue. It upholds standards of chastity and virtue, and is firmly against abortion, except occasionally in (rare) cases of rape, incest, or serious health implications (which does not include the liberal interpretation of inconvenience to the mother). I find it extremely ironic that pro-life protests are held at least twice a year at Temple Square in Salt Lake City. Either they are unaware of the Church's stance, or they do not allow for the same exceptions, or they do not agree that members who have had the procedure may go through the repentance process. In a recent church publication, Russel M. Nelson wrote one of the best articles on the subject I have read. It says all that needs to be said, but I can't help adding some more of my own thoughts, which are mostly in response to arguments justifying abortion.

One of the biggest arguments regards our lack of understanding at exactly which moment a baby in the womb is a living baby. Church leaders and scientists don't presume to know the answer to this question. Some argue that if the baby could not in any circumstance live outside of the womb, it cannot be counted as a living thing, being wholly dependent on its mother. I won't claim to know more than church leaders or scientists, but my own experience persuades me that the fetus is "alive" in a very real sense early in the pregnancy--perhaps as early as the first heartbeat. When I saw little Jeffy at 10 weeks in his first ultrasound, he looked like a little Mexican jumping bean! He wouldn't hold still, and that hasn't changed a bit! My girls didn't move at all at that point. But at the 20 week ultrasound, still too early for a baby to survive outside the mother, each of my children showed distinct character traits. Jeff arched his back and looked visibly annoyed when prodded by the doctor to get a better picture of his organs. Emmy was the sleepiest in the ultrasound, and Camille waved her hand as if to say, "Hello!" I could feel her little fingers tickling me later on in the pregnancy, and now that she's here, she still loves to touch and tickle me. I know the anecdotal evidence of an obviously biased mother isn't scientific evidence by any means, but I cannot imagine a mother would terminate a baby if she had seen what I had seen, or felt what I had felt.

The easiest argument to deal with is the one that says a mother shouldn't be inconvenienced by a bad decision. As Ann Coulter writes in her latest book, pregnancy is not like the flu, you don't just "catch" it. This goes back to my Dad's saying that choice comes before the baby, not after. Now, if a woman does not want her baby, then I agree that she is the last person who should be entrusted with a child. But I have heard of, and personally know many couples who dream of a family but cannot have their own children. They subject themselves to invasive questioning and rigorous interviews, only to be put on an endless waiting list to adopt. I know of some who have had the dream in their sights, only to have it torn away at the last minute by a biological father who suddenly appears and takes away the baby meant for them. I know of women making big bucks to be surrogate mothers. And yet millions of babies every year are terminated.

Some argue that if a woman wants an abortion, she's going to get it whether it's legal or not, so we should just make it legal. That's like saying kids are going to do Meth whether it's legal or not, so let's just make that legal as well. Some also say that if a woman is determined to have an abortion not legally available, she will go somewhere unsafe to have the abortion. Well, what about the safety of her baby? There is no safe way for a baby to be aborted.

There are even some who disagree with abortion, but defend the "rights" of women to have them. "Who are we to interfere with someone else's bad choice?" they say, "We cannot let government control these sensitive matters." This is all well and good if you believe a fetus to be the equivalent of a flu bug or a termite. The same people would be outraged if the government did nothing to protect chickens or dogs. But if you are like me, and believe that an embryo is a defenseless human being, the argument doesn't fly.

When speaking of the freedom of "choice," people conveniently forget that a baby is a person who if born, would get to experience freedom of choice.