Ending the freedom for a woman to choose in many red states south of the border scares me. The fact that there were WOMEN MPs in Canada who attended anti-abortion rallies scare me even more. I don’t understand why they’d even think about doing that (as did the fact that a WOMAN governor in Alabama signed a heartbeat bill into law. I wonder if it’s the fact that she’s old and set in her ways or if she was bullied by representatives).
As someone who has never been pregnant, I can’t begin to understand what it’s like. But I’m also a woman and a mom. And I think it’s important for mom, no EVERYONE, to not have the burden to be forced to carry a child to term. You won’t want to be forced to stay inside a burning building, would you? You’d want someone to get you out if you aren’t able to yourself.
We talk A GREAT DEAL about mental health these days. If abortion were to be limited/banned, wouldn’t the stress of carrying an unwanted or sick child be detrimental to a woman’s mental health? It would be worse if she were underage. Why don’t we talk about that aspect? Why is it all about the fetus? And if it’s “for the baby,” would you be adopting these kids after they’re born? And then there are the babies who would never make it to birth. Some terminations are for very much wanted babies. However, the fetus has a fatal genetic condition where they’d either be stillborn or survive only a few hours after birth…if they even make it to viability. Many people choose to end the pregnancy. Should women in such a situation have to go through 20+ more weeks of pregnancy knowing that their babies aren’t going to make it? Let’s put it this way: Your sibling was in a motorcycle accident and was severely injured. This sibling will unlikely EVER regain consciousness and if he or she does, will need care 24/7. Wouldn’t you and your family members choose to take this sibling off life support, given that option?
We also hear about people talking about not having intercourse if one doesn’t want babies. People who read this blog and have been reading this site for ages know that my son was carried by a surrogate. This pregnancy was the result of IVF. No intercourse is involved in IVF. Embryos are created in a lab and are then transferred to the uterus. And if life begins the the moment the sperm meets the egg, then wait, should these embryos have rights too? Usually, one or two are transferred, and the rest are frozen. If they have rights, is it okay to force, like eight embryos to sit in the deep freeze for what could be years? And what should a clinic do with these embryos if there were no clear instructions? While some jurisdictions allow discarding after a set numbers, others do not. IVF is more common now that people are waiting to have kids (with women freezing their eggs or couples freezing embryos, but waiting a few years to start families) or for same sex couples hoping to have genetic children. And sometimes, embryos do not survive the thaw (my son was supposed to be part of a double transfer, but the embryo that was supposed to be his twin did not survive the thawing process). Hmmmm, wouldn’t that fall into the “murder” category? Or do have these guys (and it’s mostly guys) not even considered that?
Or maybe we just need to ask young, male, anti-abortionists this question: Would you be okay if your parents or spouse had your sperm retrieved prior to taking you off life support if you were in a tragic accident resulting you to suffer injuries so severe that you wouldn’t survive without machines helping you? That is, of course, if you’re a registered organ donor. They’re doing this so they could have a grandchild (if it’s your parents) or a(nother) child if it’s your spouse. Creepy, right? Can’t happen, right? WRONG.
Image by Benjamin Clapp/Shutterstock. The image was taken at a Women’s March in NJ in 2017
