I know that I am going to get into serious trouble raising the issue of pro-life / pro-choice, but I have questions and thoughts on this matter.  I also know that this is a heated topic because it really revolves around when life begins and anyone’s right to end another’s life.  I hope that this might stimulate some positive discussion, and I really hope that folks will be kind in educating me when I am wrong or going out of bounds.  Here goes:

• For those that claim to be “pro-life”, are you pro-life or are you really pro-birth? The following is a quote from Sister Joan Chittister (She is theologian and American Benedictine nun, who has served as a Benedictine prioress and Benedictine federation president, president of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious and co-chair of the Global Peace Initiative of Women) that I feel captures the difference between the two:

“I do not believe that just because you are opposed to abortion, that that makes you pro-life. In fact, I think in many cases, your morality is deeply lacking if all you want is a child born but not a child fed, a child educated, a child housed… That’s not pro-life. That’s pro-birth…”

• If a man and woman make the decision to have unprotected sex, haven’t they already made a choice? Should abortion be considered as a birth control option, provided that other hormonal and nonhormonal options seem readily available?
• In those situations where a pregnancy is the result of rape or incest, should a woman be prohibited from getting an abortion, at least prior to fetal viability (which currently stands at about 21 weeks)? If so, please refer back to the pro-life / pro-birth question.
• In those situations where a pregnancy threatens the health / life of the mother should the woman be prohibited from getting an abortion? Pro-life or pro-birth?
• For pregnancies where it has been determined that the fetus has serious health / viability concerns, should a woman be forced to carry that fetus to term? Pro-life or pro-birth?
• How do you make pro-birth laws (note that this applies to any laws limiting / eliminating access to abortion, IVF and / or birth control) that are fair and equitable for all U.S. citizens?
  • How do you ensure that they do not have a greater impact on individuals with a lower income and / or individuals living in more depressed or rural areas?
  • How can you leave this matter to each state to decide, and make it fair and equitable for all U.S. citizens? Abortion is illegal in Missouri… but legal across the river in Illinois.
• Does a group primarily, or exclusively, comprised of men really deserve the right to make decisions regarding this matter (take a look at all state legislatures)? If so, should women have the primary / exclusive right to decide some men’s health issues (like vasectomies)?
• Given that DNA testing is now readily available, why don’t we hold unwed fathers equally responsible, accountable and liable for the birth, care and upbringing of a child? Why does it seem that all the laws being passed pertain only to the mother and healthcare workers?  What about the fathers?

I can’t come up with answers that address all of the various situations, that will satisfy everyone and be fair and equitable for all. Hopefully such a solution is out there.  However, until such a solution is found, I find it reprehensible that laws are passed limiting / prohibiting abortions while not taking any action to address the ongoing needs of the child and mother.  Further, I do not think that men have should have any standing on this matter unless, and until, unwed fathers are held equally accountable, responsible and liable.

All this being said, I hope that there might be some things that we could all agree on, which could allow us to focus on the real areas of disagreement.  Here’s some initial thoughts to consider:

• Increase access to birth control and ensure that it is readily available in all geographic areas and to all economic classes. Further, ensure that folks are aware of it and educated about it.
• Allow a woman, in consultation with her physician (and family when appropriate) to decide whether to terminate her pregnancy:
• where the pregnancy threatens her long-term health or life.
• where there are clearly identified issues regarding the health / viability of the fetus.
• in cases of rape or incest and prior to fetal viability.
• Allow a pregnant woman to require that one man be DNA tested for paternity. If the DNA test determines that he is the father he automatically assumes equal responsibility for the birth, care and upbringing of the child.  Testing costs could be borne by the woman if the test determines he is not the father; or, by the man if testing determines that he is the father.  Note, this could be waived if a man accepts paternity and the corresponding responsibilities without a DNA test.
• Require all health insurance providers to extend a man’s dependent insurance (where available) to a child conceived out of wedlock, regardless of whether the man and woman ever marry.

I think these ideas may address all the scenarios except for a healthy pregnancy resulting from unprotected, voluntary sex.  Clearly, this still requires resolution, but isn’t that the real sticking point anyway?  Also, note that these ideas would increase the likelihood that children have access to the care and welfare they need and that both parents assume responsibility.

OK, give me time to dig my foxhole, put on my Kevlar vest and strap on my helmet before you start volleying shells in my direction…