Jots and Tittles

I only have about half an hour to write this, so it won't be as in-depth as I would like.  However, since my Goddess Religions professor was kind enough to attempt to indoctrinate me regarding her position on abortion, I thought I would air my own views on the subject.  It shouldn't take long; they are quite simple.

If you're looking for a very long, in-depth, thorough and (in my own humble opinion) excellent defense of the pro-life position, I suggest reading Rebecca Kiessling's essay.  I especially like her reasoning regarding partial-birth and other late-term abortions - at that point, it has NOTHING to do with the mother's body, as it's quite possible to deliver the child by c-section or inducing labor, and in many cases the child stands a chance to live.  In those cases, is it not the obligation of the mother to attempt to preserve life where it is clearly possible to do so?  What right does the mother have to dictate that this child be killed, when very little effort on her part will secure its survival (or at least make survival possible)?  If she wants to avoid raising it, there are plenty of adoption agencies out there which would be glad to help her find a home for her child.  At that point, it is nothing but sheer, selfish laziness that is prompting the mother to seek abortion.

My point of view on the matter is somewhat simpler.  The only time in which abortion is permissible is when the mother's or the child's life is threatened by carrying the baby full term.  In the case of the mother, she has the right to act in what is, essentially, self-defense, and save her own life at the cost of another's, assuming that is the only way she can save herself.  I may not like it, but I will grant that right.  In the case of the child, well, if it won't survive the birth anyway, why make the mother suffer through a pregnancy that will come to nothing?  However, in all other cases - including that of rape - while the inconvenience of a nine-month pregnancy may be unappealing, that is absolutely NO reason to deprive an innocent child of its life.  The child is not the guilty party in the matter, regardless of how one thinks of it.  And honestly, the majority of abortions are done in cases where it was simply inconvenient for the woman to be pregnant, for whatever reason, and she puts her own personal comfort and ease ahead of another person's life, for which she is wholly responsible and with which she has been entrusted its sole care.  That's not only selfish to the extreme, but it's quite sick.  Kiessling gives an example of a man snowed in to a cabin with a child who is too small to reach any of the food stored in the cupboards, for nine months.  If he were to refuse to get food for the child because it would inconvenience him (perhaps he has a bum shoulder which makes reaching up to the cupboards painful), and the child starved to death because of his inaction, would not everyone be up in arms?  He has the means to provide for this child, and while it may have been inconvenient for him to do so, that does not absolve him of the responsibility to do it. 

It frustrates me to no end to hear all these women saying that "it's my right to choose what happens to my body."  What kind of selfish, unfeeling, stuck-up, evil person are you?  How dare you?  Nothing angers me quite like that. 

But anyway.  I should head to class.  Just thought I'd get that off my chest.  :)

-Jaya-