Where Abortion is a topic widely discussed all over the world, I feel Euthanasia is somewhat forgotten. Why is Euthanasia less controversial? Both adress the ending of a living being, is it not? Is it because 'Babies are cute' and adults and elderly people are not? That would be really shallow. Both topics are socially important and need to be adressed. 

​

Disclaimer: This page shows some ads. The companies shown in the ads have nothing to do with my view on either abortion or euthanasia. This page shows my view and only my view. 

​

My view on Abortion

​

Regarding abortion there are two sides; "pro-life" and "pro-choice". And believe it or not, but I consider myself to be "pro-life", for the very simple reason that I believe abortions should be prevented as much as possible. The way to do that, is by trying to prevent as many unwanted pregnancies as possible, through sexual education and to make contraceptives and condoms available as much as possible. But somehow, the many within the 'pro-life' community seem to be against this. You'd wonder why.

​

Even with proper sexual education, contraceptives and condoms available, unintended pregnancies might occur. Unintended doesn't mean unwanted, please keep that in mind. When an uninteded pregnancy occurs, one should look at the impact it has, not just on the woman, but also her personal situation, socially and professionally. There might be a lot of things that will make raising a child difficult. Now, that being said, I know people will yell 'Adoption!'.

 

Unfortunately adoption is a non-argument. A large portion of children put up for adoption spend a long time in foster care without being adopted, if they even are being adopted. If they are not, they might even end up homeless when they reach adulthood. And there are ofcourse the stress-related psychological issues with many adopted people, as it seems that adopted people are more likely to commit suicide than non-adopted people. The foster care system is stressed already. By banning abortion the whole system would mostlikely collapse, causing immense problems for those involved.

 

This leaves the woman to contemplate wether or not she wants to carry the pregnancy full term. She is the one who has changes happen to her body, regardless of what she wants and since she has 'bodily autonomy' she gets to decide if she wants those changes to happen. Do I believe the person who contributed the seamen to the pregnancy to have a vote? Sure, when the pregnancy is the result of consentual intercourse, sure. But then it still would be a minority vote, as the contributor doesn't have the changes happen to their body. 

​

As John B. Finch said "the rights of one person end, where the rights of another person begin". As the woman has bodily autonomy, if she doesn't want to be pregnant, the fetus would be in direct violation of that right. Now, you can turn that around and say "the fetus has the right to life and the womans bodily autonomy would directly violate that with an abortion". This begs the question "When does the fetus get it's right to life?". Well, many of the 'abortion is murder' people will say "life starts at conception", which is all well and nice, but also irrelevant. We are not talking about life, but the right to life, which is a different thing. Having something and being entitled to that thing are not the same.

​

At conception a 'Zygote' or 'Blastocyste' is formed in the Fallopian tube and it then attaches to the uterus wall. For the first 2 weeks of the pregnancy, the pregnancy is fragile. In nature about 50% of all Zygotes fail and are washed out with the menstrual waste. 

​

After 2 weeks, the zygote turns in to an 'embryo'. In this stadium the clump of cells has a more rapid development and all kinds of organs start to form. Please note, that I said 'start to form'. I did not say "are formed". These organs are far from functional. The embryo state lasts until about week 9, when it enters the fetal state. From week 9 until birth it is a 'Fetus', which keeps developing in to a person. Up to about week 13 there is still a rather large chance of 'spontaneous abortion' or what is known as a miscarriage.

 

About 10 to 15% of all known pregnancies end in a miscarriage. Of which 80% happen in the first trimester. The other 20% happen up to week 20. After week 20, it is called 'stillbirth', which happens in about 1% of all pregnancies. 

​

Up to week 21 the fetus has no chance of survival, without the mother. It is completely dependant on the mother to supply it with an environment to grow and develop in and to supply it with oxigen and neutrients. You can say that up to week 21 the pregnancy is a "parasite - host relationship". It is kinda cruel to put it that way, but that doesn't make it less true. 

​

Between week 21 and 24, the chances of survival without the mother are less than 50%, but increasing. After 24 week the chances are above 50%. Which is why, in countries like the USA and the Netherlands, week 24 is the boundary for an abortion. After that no abortions unless absolutely medical necessary. Prior to that there are rules, but they are more lenient. 

​

Basically the fetus is awarded it's 'right to life' at week 24, when there is a reasonable expectation of survival. Personally, I feel this should be sooner. Recently a baby was born at 23 weeks and survived, but with statistics, this will happen. There will always be the 'odd one out'.

​

In accordence with other countries, at the moment, I feel the period for a 'no questions asked abortion' should be 13 weeks. This will allow the woman some time to recognise she is pregnant and think about it. Up to this point there stil is a large chance of a miscarriage, the fetus can't feel anything, doesn't have a braincapacity to have consciousness, etc. Besides, the fetus can still be aborted, without the 'Dilation and Evacuation' method, where the fetus is torn apart. Up until week 13 or 14 the fetus can be abortied by inducing a miscarriage with medication or removing the fetus through suction, which seems more humane to me. 

​

I know people will ask "what about the women who don't know they are pregnant?". Well, they do have the responsibility to know what is going on with their body. They check their breasts for lumps, have pap smears and HPV tests to find cervical cancer, they should also check for pregnancies, when sexually active. If they are sexually active and fail to check wether or not they've become pregnant, and they find out, after week 13, then they should forfeit their bodily autonomy, with regards to the pregnancy, to the fetus, since they failed to take responsibility. Ofcourse, as with anything, exceptions may apply. 

​

By reducing the 'free abortion' period to week 13, you would not ban abortions after week 13. Some diseases can only be detected from week 17 onwards. Diseases that would make the quality of life for the fetus extremely poor, or the baby would have an extremely short life expectancy with poor quality of life. So, after week 13 based on medical necessity abortions should still be allowed. 

​

Besides that, there are ofcourse other reasons to consider abortion. There will always be exceptions to the rule. But then medical professionals should still be able to give advice on the situation, so a rational, logical decision can be made. 

​

Recap of how I see the abortion process

Week 0 to 14 

• Woman has the responsibilty to recognise she is pregnant to maintain bodily autonomy.      

• 'No questions asked abortion" is allowed.

Week 14 to birth 

• Fetus has received 'right to life'

• Abortion without 'Medical necessity' not allowed

• Abortion with 'Medical necessity' is allowed

• Woman failed to recognise she is pregnant means she forfeits bodily automy to the fetus. 

Please note: I did not study ethics, nore am I any kind of medical professional. All information noted has been researched, which is the basis for my view on abortion. This view may change.