Controversial Topic Discussion

When I used the word unforeseeable I was not referring to pregnancy itself. That is always a possible consequence, even when birth control measures are taken, so can't be considered unforeseeable. What I referred to as unforeseeable are birth defects. Some children are born to a life requiring twenty four hour medical care and placing an unimaginable financial and emotional burden upon the parents. These situations are unforeseeable at the time of conception. This is the question of unforeseeable circumstances I was raising. It is, like the circumstance of rape, another area of the abortion question that deserves its own, independent, voice.

As to the other points, the problem with stating that people should not have sex unless prepared to assume the burden of raising a/another child is that it is unreasonable. I am sure most would agree that sex is an important aspect of a relationship.Take the average married couple. Let's say they have sex once a week, or fifty-two times a year (most statistics I have seen place this at the low end of the spectrum). Contrast this against the fact that the average married couple has less than three children. We can see that there is a huge discrepancy between the number of incidents of sex and the number of children. But, any one of those incidents of sex could lead to a pregnancy (given a non-pregnant state at the time of the incident). Would it therefor be reasonable to ask of those married couples who can not, at the time, meet the requirements of raising a/another child to refrain from sexual activity? What effect would such a proposal, which would remove one of the most powerful re-affirming bonding experiences between the couple, have on the already existent family unit? (Birth control methods are the most reasonable option but over half of those who seek abortions claim to have been using birth control at the time of conception, so it does not solve the problem.)

To reduce the abortion issue to the right to life versus the right to pursuit of happiness is, I think, overly simplistic. The issues that arise when we look at requiring all women to carry every pregnancy to term are far broader than the effect such a requirement would have on the given parent's pursuit of happiness. The overall society is effected by such a law. It cuts to the heart of our right to dictate what we do with our own bodies. It is a question of whether we own ourselves or whether the government can intercede into our most private of spaces, that contained within what we identify as self.

This is where the scenario of the kidney transplant comes in. I agree that there is an issue of the inherent risk of the requirement such that one could consider the risk involved in the kidney question unreasonable and the abortion one acceptable. But there is risk involved in the pregnancy question as well, both for the parent and for the society as a whole. To draw an arbitrary line of delineation between a risk that is unreasonable and one that is acceptable leaves too vague a border as to where the government's right to dictate the requirements of our personal being stops. To slightly rephrase the question and create one of a more hypothetical nature, given a circumstance where the kidney operation involves no more risk than the childbirth one, would it then be acceptable for the government to be able to place such a requirement on the parent?

Anyway, as I said, I can never fully come to terms with my own personal answer to this question. It is mainly for this reason that I can not see fit to force my opinion onto others and therefor must side with pro-choice.