January 22, 2004 - 8:29 p.m.

Choice

In honor of the anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision, today I was contemplating my stance, unstable as it is, on abortion. I have always struggled with the question of abortion rights, and to this day I cannot confidently call myself either pro-life or pro-choice.

I certainly don't think that the government has much business stepping in and deciding whether or not a woman must carry a pregnancy to term. That could lead to all sorts of abuses, and still, even with most abortions being legal, leaves us struggling with where to draw the line between concern for the mother's quality of life and the life inherent in the fetus. There are too many cases in which an abortion seems a reasonable choice, even to my conservative feelings, for me to be comfortable siding with the pro-lifers. If the woman was raped or her health is endangered, etc. I certainly don't like the idea of children being born into families where they would be unwanted, possibly unloved, and hugely disadvantged.

Still, the very thought of an abortion repulses me. I think it is incredibly arrogant to feel we have the right to decide the fate of a life or potential life. Who knows what kind of good that child could bring to the world? Doctor's would have supported my mother if she had decided not to go through with her pregnancy with my younger brother. He's had myriad health problems, but he has also brought an immense amount of laughter and caring into all of our lives. He's a gifted artist and a wonderful person. One could argue that my family has the resources to deal with those challenges while others would crack under the strain of a normal child much less a disabled one. Point taken. I certainly wish that people in general were able to be responsible and to make thoughtful, balanced decisions, but I, frankly, don't have that much faith in humanity. Too many couples have sex without consideration of the consequences, and abortions should not be used to mop up after their mistakes.

Perhaps my biggest problem with the pro-choice stance is their emphasis on the woman's right to choose what happens to her own body. In general, I certainly agree with that. The problem with abortion is that it isn't just the woman's body involved. The question of when a fetus becomes a person is way too fuzzy to make me comfortable with that argument. We don't even know whether a fetus can feel pain. Why does a woman get to have carte blanche in dealing with a fetus just because it happens to be in her womb? An extension of that position should make it acceptable for a conjoined twin to kill its other half, since it can do whatever it wants with it's body. Sure, that sounds ridiculous, but to my mind the "it's my body" argument is just as selfish.

I guess, ultimately, I end up on the side of pro-choice more than pro-life. I suppose I would rather see a few gratuitous abortions than the government over-regulating our lives. I'd really rather see all the money, energy, and lobbying that goes into abortion rights going into sex education programs, reliable, accessible birth control, and research into birth defects. Then we can reduce the number of abortions without forcing women into motherhood.

today's project: resting my overworked muscles - tough weight class today!

musing about: the Democratic candidates, since I am watching their debate. Is it me or does Kucinich look like a corpse&

�

flutter back - fly ahead