The now widespread assertion that a person is a person from the moment of conception seems to be an exaggeration. The acorn is an acorn, and the oak is an oak tree. And to say that not planting a fruit is the same as cutting a tree is absurd. The acorn can become an oak tree. Zygote (a fertilized egg) - can also become a person. But this is not human, and it is difficult to substantiate logically what the vacuum in the first weeks of pregnancy differs from the use of contraceptives or the rejection of sex. After all, both, and another, and the third - in fact, only a refusal to give birth to a child. Which is indirectly confirmed by the church, which does not approve not only abortion - medical abortion, but also contraceptives, condoms and even sex for sex, without the intention to conceive offspring. It's all a sin ...
In the reasoning of one of the priests, I read the logical idea: it is necessary to admit the violation of a single commandment, a man automatically violates the second - as soon as a sexual revolution struck, and the change of sexual partners became a permissible phenomenon, states had to resolve abortion at the legislative level. And then I agree with him if not in the assessment, then in fact - you can not rebuild the foundation without rebuilding the whole house!
A hundred years ago, extramarital affairs were exceptions to the general rule and, especially, abortion, the medical termination of pregnancy. Previously, the problem of an unplanned pregnancy could have been born only in an exceptional situation. Now the exception became the rule. And you can wring your hands as many as you like and ask: "Where does the world go?" - it does not move backwards. He goes ahead and demands a search for new approaches: the construction of a new house, a new society, new laws and views.
To assert "a woman can not have an abortion because she can not" - only stupidly repeat the thesis of a hundred years ago, forgetting that in those years other people were attached to him: "a woman can not vote in elections because she can not"; "A woman can not travel without her husband's permission" ... This important lawlessness was followed by an important right - since she, poor thing, can not do anything, provide her completely and the children must have a father or husband. But the foundation has changed. Women are free. Many of them have no husbands. Others do not have anyone at all, they take care of themselves exclusively. No one should help them. Therefore, they do not owe anyone anything either. And no one has the right to prevent them from surviving in this world, with which they are fighting one on one. And if an unwanted pregnancy prevents them from surviving in the urban jungle or just hinders ... then here we rest on an unsoluble philosophical question: what is more valuable - the life of one person or the freedom of another?
Who will say that it is easy to give birth and raise a child, let the stone throw me first! Nine months and the whole subsequent life of the child requires a constant investment of money, time, physical and mental strength. It's at least work - hard, complicated and daily. The question of unwanted children is at least a question: why should a person work for free? After all, only slaves work for free and against desire.
Slavery also existed not so long ago and seemed so natural that the proposal to eliminate it was perceived by many as blatant foolishness: "From what suddenly? This is a holy tradition. She is thousands of years old! "The same is with childbirth and abortion - a medical abortion of pregnancy. The fact that for millennia women did this without a murmur, silently, was the norm. So / KC is convenient, like slavery. Habitual enough that no one was even interested in: what was the cost of such a sacrifice for them, who would reimburse it, and whether they should bear this cross in principle? Slavery was abolished 150 years ago, the slavish position of a woman who has no right to refuse the production of offspring - less than a century ago. And there are reasons to believe that by the 150th jubilee of women's liberties the question: "Is it right for a woman to exercise her right to choose?" - will not even be discussed, like the theme "Do we have the right to keep serfs? "But while the obligation to give birth is still spoken of as a law, from the execution of which women shy away from laziness, depravity and selfishness. It's like talking about a five-minute test report or, at worst, donor blood, not a victim, the price of which sometimes is your life.
And if abortion is still a murder, how often does a woman living in the 21st century have to choose between murder and suicide - physical or social? Who has the right to condemn it? Only those who know the answer to the second unsolvable philosophical question: "What is better, not to be born at all, or to live life as if you did not live?"
Is it possible to force someone to perform a feat or is this a purely voluntary affair? If tomorrow you suddenly find yourself tied by dozens of tubes to another person and hear: "He is unable to survive without you" - whether you will endure it nine months or shout in fear: "And you asked me!" Do you agree, even if for the sake of saving someone's life, right now give your body for experiments, risking your health, life, career, work, and even fund experiments from your own pocket? How many there are such enthusiasts? Two? Ten? Women must agree to this all and always, in any period of life! They must be obliged to give birth to law! The thesis of a hundred years ago. But those who say it forget: now a woman and a man are equal in rights. And if a woman can be obliged to give birth for the sake of saving lives - then, any free person can be forced to give (at least!) Nine months of his life for the sake of saving someone else's.
The difference between the desired and unwanted pregnancy is the same as between the first night of lovers and rape. And the only way for a male person to understand what a woman feels when she learns of an unwanted pregnancy is to imagine herself, a man, a victim of sexual violence. For rape is not only physical, but also psychological trauma, the collapse of the world. And how many, having the opportunity to protect their honor by sending a bullet to the rapist on the forehead, will remember at that instant that human life is above all else? Would you prefer to sacrifice yourself?
Probably, late-stage abortion can be equated to murder, and this is a serious accusation. But few of us have the right to blame others. Can a person who, in response to the appeal: "Help save the life of the child" - refused to sacrifice just one hryvnia, condemn a woman who did not want to sacrifice the whole life for the sake of the child? We all kill every day, refusing to give money to the beggar, turning away from those who need help. Hundreds of people depend only on our choice, but no one drags us by force to give them their kidney and blood. The society recognizes for us the right not to be heroes, not to sacrifice, to be indifferent ... For, what is more valuable: the life of one person, or the freedom of another? - the third unsolvable philosophical question. Nobody knows an unambiguous answer ...
"Because," I said to a friend, "I can give you only one piece of advice. Do not let me or anyone decide for you. Everyone can answer himself only. "