The issue of pro-life/pro-choice is one loaded with prejudice and contempt, on both sides. In my experience it has been extremely unpopular to be "pro-life" in the Pagan community. The general opinion has been that because I am pro-life, I am "anti-women's-rights", or even just "anti-women,"; that I am a foolish, arrogant, ignoramus, who has been poisoned by Christian dogma and their backward ideology. I take these accusations in stride, because they are a predictable reaction from an artificially free-thinking community. Free-thinking should literally mean, free to think and reason and come up with ideas on one's own without fear of reproach. But instead, we in the Pagan community are so often blinded by our childish rebellion to anything which appears Christian, that to appease our craving to be free-thinking, it is often enough only to oppose the Christian status quo. How quaint and superficial.
I am not a Christian apologist. And in fact, while I may, as a pro-lifer, appear to agree with the Christian pro-life stance, I do not agree with their train of reasoning at all. I do not agree with condemning a young couple for making a poor choice, or rallying around an outdated and misinterpreted text. I certainly do not condone the actions of any radicals -Christian or otherwise- who blow up abortion clinics or shoot "abortion" doctors. None of this is acceptable to me.
Here's how I see it. Sex is natural and good. It is an important part of human life and is an expression of love for another, to whom we are devoted. It's also damned fun. And I would never presume to tell a couple that they ought to abstain from a sexual relationship. However, in any sexual relationship there is a greater-than-zero risk of unexpected pregnancy, despite taking all the precautions possible. This risk is known to all consenting and sexually active couples, at least in North America and in this day and age. Therefore all intentionally, sexually active people acknowledge that each time they have sex there is the possibility of pregnancy. Since the risk is greater-than-zero, it is simple probability that the more times they have sex, the greater their chance of pregnancy. If condoms are rated at 88%* effective, then on average twelve out of every one hundred will fail to protect properly. Thus, on average, for a couple having sex and using only condoms as protection, there is a remarkably good chance of pregnancy. If the couple, prior to having sex, acknowledge that they are ill prepared to parent a child, and they also acknowledge that they are prepared to use any means to end an unwanted pregnancy, then they are as much as accepting, in a premeditated way, that they will likely use abortion at some time in the future; It is only a matter of how long their luck will hold before the time comes. It would be immature and naïve to hold the attitude that "it won't happen to us." Given these parameters, it is clear that abortion is being used, quite plainly, as a form of birth control. And this is simply not acceptable.
The rebuttals I hear most are:
1) How dare you tell us we shouldn't be having sex!
On the contrary, I never once suggested you should not be having sex. I acknowledge that sex is healthy and normal, and extremely beneficial to the proper functioning of adult human beings. But, that said, when a pregnancy occurs, it's time to "pay the piper". One doesn't get something for nothing, and if you choose to have sex - and it is a choice - then you are making the decision to take the risk of pregnancy. If you are lucky, that may never happen, (and all the better for you.) But when it does happen, who is responsible? You are. It's not the condom company's fault. It's not your parents' fault. It's not your doctor's fault. You chose to have sex, and now that you've conceived, a new human is created. The past is past, and you must deal with the consequences of your decisions. This of course leads me to rebuttal number two.
2) But a fetus is not a person, it's only a few cells. OR, You throw away more living cells when you cut your fingernails than when you abort a fetus. What's the difference?
There is a distinct difference. (That cell clump should not be looked at as a static moment in time.) Observe the clump for one week, or one day, or one hour, and it becomes immediately obvious that the clump of cells is not merely a clump of 4 or 8 or 16 cells. It is a collection of cells that is in a rapid state of metamorphosis. And their destination is no mystery. Their destination is a human being. This idea of "rapid state of change" is not unfamiliar to any of us. Take for instance a new born baby. It is unable to speak, it is unable to care for itself, it is weak and uncomfortable and an immensely energy-consuming creature for the parents to look after. The description is not so dissimilar to that of a person with a severely debilitating mental disorder. And there have been instances in the past when persons with severe mental disability have been euthanized. What's more is that while most people agree that euthanasia is immoral on the whole, most were also sympathetic to the person who put his debilitated child out of her misery. But, can you imagine someone killing their new born child? It would be unthinkable! Why, what's the difference? The answer is clear. It is evident from observation and experience that a child is simply in an early state of development. We see and recognize that the child is in a rapid state of growth with an enormous potential to become a communicative, intelligent, self-reliant, productive member of society. But the person with the debilitating mental illness is recognized as being in a state which will never improve. There is no potential for development, there is no chance of growth or improvement or self-reliance. You see the dramatic difference? The fetus is no different than the new born child, it is merely at an earlier stage of development. There is no doubt that it is undergoing a rapid state of change, preparing itself to become a new born, who in turn is preparing him/herself to become a bouncing toddler who in turn will become an adolescent and then an adult and so on.
From the moment of conception, a sequence of events is set into motion. As long as you care for your body and eat well, once conception has taken place, nothing else is necessary for the fetus to develop into a baby.
3) You have no right to say what a woman is allowed to do with her body.
I believe this is a sexist and irrational accusation. We are all responsible for the network of life which surrounds us and upholds us, and of which we are a part. If it weren't for farmers and truck drivers, and garbage men, and on and on, society would not function, people would not be able to feed themselves and cities could not exist. No human being is able to exist without the direct and indirect assistance of other human beings. A fetus is no different. Its needs are more specific, and more profound, perhaps, than people at a later state of development, but it is simply dependent on another human being for its existence just as everyone else is. A new born does not give up its dependence on its mother just because it is born! A mother cannot, legally, abandon an infant because it is "her choice to do what she wants with her body." The consequences of her (and her mate's) actions have made them responsible for another human who is dependent on them for his or her existence.
Furthermore, it is a shame that women, especially those who are unwilling to become mothers, alone possess the ability to bear children. I am a man. I was born as a male, and there isn't a damn thing I can do about it. But if I could bear children, I would. By telling me that a woman is free to choose to abort a fetus which she is carrying, a flood gate is opened which removes all protection rights a father has over his own offspring, which is, genetically, 50% his own being. This genuinely frightens me. It is my worst nightmare that I would fall in love with a woman, she would become pregnant, and then she would decide that she is not prepared to be a mother, and choose to abort the child against my will. I am afraid that under today's legal system, she would have the right to murder our child. And I would have no say in the matter whatsoever. The child may be dependent on her body for its existence, but that ought not to be enough to give her the right to scrape it off her body as if it were an unwanted cyst.
A few random comments. There is a growing trend in our society which allows people, or at worst encourages people, to shirk their personal responsibility. If someone slips and breaks his leg, he starts looking for someone to blame. Who didn't put out the warning sign? Who didn't sand the icy walkway? Who didn't design his shoes to be more slip resistant? Who, who, who? It's anyone's fault, BUT the person who didn't take enough care when walking on an icy day. It is a sad statement of our culture and our society that we are unable to simply take responsibility for the consequences of our choices and our actions. In 99.9% of the abortion cases, there is no reason why the couple are unable to care for a child. Financial reasons are often cited as the leading incentive for abortion. Other reasons are frequently, "we just weren't ready." or "I don't have the time because of my schooling or my work." In my opinion, these are all trite and unacceptable reasons. These reasons are a product of cultural conditioning about poverty and the standard of living. In North America we live like kings. Even the poorest of the poor here do not know the meaning of the word. No one is starving here. Virtually everyone can afford clothing, food and shelter. Thrift stores and bulk food from the supermarket allow a person to survive, and be quite healthy, on only a few dollars a week. When a person says they can't afford to have a baby, or they don't have the time to care for a baby, what they really mean is that they can't afford to care for a baby and maintain their currently enjoyed comfort level. They can afford to raise a child, but in order to do so they must take a hit to their pride or their comfort or both. Well congratulations! So have all parents since the beginning of time. Because society allows them, they place their own vanity over the life of an unborn child. Now before you judge me too harshly and point your finger and yell obscenities at me, remember, I'm not talking about banning contraception, á la the pope. I'm talking about being responsible, and taking every precaution available to not become pregnant in the first place. But if those precautions were not enough and you do become pregnant, take a stand. Live up to your actions. Be proactive. Be responsible for what has happened. Live with it!
The above, unfortunately, makes it seem as though having a child is a "consequence," something you have to suffer through for your misdeeds. Not at all. Part of being proactive is to see beyond your vanities and to recognize that maybe the reason that condom (or whatever) didn't work is because you are being given a special gift. Embrace the spontaneity of the Gods and make it a wonderful part of your new life. Rebel against society's secular disassociation from the benefits and beauty of fertility and life, and be alive!
Remember, abortion stops a beating heart.
Greg Nacu, Wiccan, Kingston Ontario Canada