Today was removed from the crowd-funding site GoFundMe a plea of a woman known as Bailey, asking for $2,500 US for paying her abortion, arguing a “rough, unplanned and unexpected pregnancy.” The page was removed because of the complaints of a group of detractors, but at that moment more than a hundred people had donated $1,654 US.
In May this year, a woman posted the video of her abortion in social media, causing indignation among the defenders of human rights, throwing slurs and condemning her as murder in confrontation against supporters that advocated for the free will over her body.
These cases may be considered as a dehumanization of society, but then I ask, how human or inhuman, or natural or unnatural abortion is?
Abortion exists within nature, many women had experienced it, and many more fight to prevent abortion and save their babies. The “natural” causes are no objected, and in the “unnatural” or induced cases—like when the pregnancy puts in danger the life of the mother or when the fetus presents an anomaly—it has been socially approved most of the times.
During the moment of uncertainty when parents pass judgment in abortion based on the possibility of negative outcome described by the doctor, they are just choosing the greater good—or the lesser evil depending of the point of view.
Abortion, like most of our decisions, is taken in the heat of the moment, based in the current emotional, economic, physical and psychological state, but we seldom project ourselves into the future. How do I know? Because, in general, we perform terrible in financial planning.
There is a tool called, Net Present Value, that helps to calculate the future value of the money, in order to take more appropriate business decisions. In the same context, for ethical and moral dilemmas, I like to use a tool entitled “Future Suffering Value.” How can I explain this? Well lets back to the Bailey case:
As part of their justification, Bailey stated they are “broke kids who really need to have this abortion. Sometimes the pain is so bad that I can’t get out of bed, and I can’t go to the bathroom.” This connotes a not very enthusiastic or healthy home to bring a newborn.
Let’s assume that she keeps the baby and based in my observation of similar cases, odds are that they will not work as a marriage (if they marry), so she will end up as a single mother having difficulties to raise a child and keep her studies. This form of unwanted compromise will be perceived as a failure, and she may feel “robbed” of her youth and freedom, attached to someone she loves, but beneath her skin, the sense of frustration will linger, And odds are, that everything will be projected into the baby. But things can be worst, what about a unwanted son that is despised and abused? Or abandoned? (If you think that is a little bit drastic, remember that The Steve Jobs—the same created the iPhone in which probably you may be reading this—he abandoned and denied his daughter even after DNA tests…)
If we sum the cumulus of bad things that an unwanted child can suffer though his whole life, can that equals or surpass the pain of premature, unconscious womb death by abortion?
I believe—and have witnessed—some cases in which it does.
Is that an unnatural way of thinking?
Well, I always like to point the example of the beloved by everyone, Panda Bear. This fluffy and charismatic creature has an offspring of around six babies. Given her nature, the mother can only feed and take care of one, so she must choose from among the six, the one to save, condemning the other to an irrevocably death.
Is nature heartless? Evil?
Or that is just the practical thing to do? The lesser evil?
I never said that the panda mother doesn’t suffer making her choice. Or that was easy. But truth is that nature is plagued with this examples of moral dilemmas solved in the practical way to ensure the higher probabilities of success of the species. Because the choice is not random, the mother picks the more healthy and prepared of the babies to confront the harshness of the life ahead.
But, unlike the panda, we live in a time where we can chose to have or not the babies using anticonceptives, and we can control our impulses and make an effort to prepare ourselves and the conditions surrounding us to welcome the newborn. Finally we have the consciousness to decide if we want and if we are ready to be parents. Conception is a choice… at least in the species homo sapiens sapiens.
If we don’t use that tools right now to plan and control the growth of our species, factors like: the overpopulation, the unemployment and the exhaustion of natural resources, will create suffering enough to put human kind in the Panda dilemma in the near future. Abortion will become a necessity, not an option. It will be the lesser evil to avoid future suffering to the human beings.
What we have to do to prevent it?
Reduce our selfishness.
Our actual culture over glorifies the pleasure without teaching about confronting consequences. And everyone wants sex, but few take with good eyes a pregnancy.
For those living a more “primitive” or “natural” existence, can take the panda example and make an arithmetic decision and forget about morality and guilt.
Truth is, there are no absolutes. Everyone is the sole responsible of making the choice.
M. Ch. Landa
PS. And for the people condemning the abortions, casting slurs doesn’t improve the situation, nor make you appear clever—that’s just hate and there is nothing more selfish than hate—and at the bottom end I don’t see any of them adopting the unwanted abandoned children to save their lives.