Abortion ban will have repercussions

 

A few years ago, there was great concern over a newborn baby that was left in a dumpster in Saskatoon by her mother. The incident drew a lot of media attention, for obvious reasons. It was tragic. 

We can assume that the mother struggled with some form of mental illness, where she could no longer see the forest for the trees. Surely, there were other options available, like giving the child up for adoption, but she saw only one.  

Few mothers are willing to abandon their children, although even our loving childbirth instructor once confessed she had thoughts of “disposing” of her baby after months of sleepless nights. To actually carry out the act is different, but it shows that even “normal” people can momentarily entertain the unthinkable. 

The unthinkable, to us, is ending the life of a newborn. When it comes to the unborn, however, the ethical boundaries become less clear.  

In this debate, so fraught with contention, we are forced to ask the following questions: When does life begin? Is it murder to kill a newborn, but not a fetus one day before birth? How about five months before birth? What about at conception? 

I’m not trying to ignite a firestorm here; I’m just thinking it through. 

There’s a fine line in determining personhood, and it’s not at all clear when that begins. At some point in pregnancy, most Canadians view abortion as permissible. There should be no penalties, no guilt and no shame. A woman, they would say, is doing what is best for her and her family. 

For others (many of them on the U.S. Supreme Court), there is no line. It’s the same, they might say, as killing another human being. This view permeates many southern states as they begin to ban and criminalize the act of abortion. 

I hold issue with this black and white view of things. Not only is a door being opened to far riskier and deadlier methods of abortion, but also to the imprisonment of young women whose lives could be ruined by a life circumstance that – in case you weren’t aware – had some male involvement. Perhaps the biological fathers should face prosecution too? As it stands, women with wealth and resources will be able to travel to places that still offer abortion, while those who do not could face jail time.

The ethical argument of the pro-life movement – that personhood begins at conception – may hold merit from a religious viewpoint, but lacks consistency in its application. In reality, the unborn are often valued more than the living. Once a child is born into poor socio-economic circumstances, they are often neglected by the same states that want to “protect” the unborn. Similarly, children all over the world are dying through largely preventable disease and malnutrition. 

But banning abortion is far easier than addressing child poverty. It requires very little sacrifice, and can be as simple as changing a court ruling. As we’ve heard recently in the news, the U.S. Supreme Court may end up doing just that. 

As a justification for overturning the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, some of these justices may argue that women have other options, like giving up their child for adoption. I would say that after nine months of pregnancy and life pressures mounting, that’s far easier said than done. Combine this with other traumas, and you get a mother who leaves her newborn in a dumpster. 

I’m not saying the issue has easy answers. There is that fine line. 

But any society would be reckless to eliminate that line altogether.