An Obvious Question: What Does Reproductive “Care” and Reproductive “Freedom” Have to Do with Abortion?

Most would agree that the process of human “reproduction” involves creating life and the act of the human species reproducing itself, while the term “reproductive care” denotes assistance and maintenance (i.e., “care”) with the act of reproducing. In other words, the production of offspring. We know that life is complex, which makes assisting life a complicated undertaking that requires a significant degree of care.

On the other hand, the simple act of ending a life does not involve “care,” and is in fact the opposite of care. Without question, there is generally no special training or advanced degree needed for one to be able to put an end to life, as it is relatively easy to accomplish (pouring poison into a glass or pointing a gun and pulling a trigger are several clear examples). Despite this fact, our society has made abortion into a grim (or “morbid”) science.

The term “care” as used in the phrase “reproductive care” is synonymous with healthcare, resulting in the alternative term “reproductive healthcare.” The key word here is “health,” and there is a reason it is often left out of the phrase when it is used in the context of abortion. It is nonsensical to use it in relation to abortion, as pregnancy is not a disease and is not a condition that needs to be “cured.” We are all necessarily aware that in any pregnancy, by some amazing miracle, human life has begun. The only appropriate medical (healthcare) issue in a pregnancy should be maintaining the health of the mother and the health of the living, growing (temporarily small) child that has recently come into existence. Providing assistance with this miraculous process, keeping the mother healthy, and seeing the child safely to its birth is the objective of healthcare as relates to pregnancy.

What is so often missed by some (intentionally, or possibly as an ostrich might stick its head in the sand), is that there are (at least) two people involved in every pregnancy—mother and child (or possibly multiple children, if one is so blessed). Is a woman’s health involved in a pregnancy? Absolutely. But so is the child’s health. In fact, we know this without question in the case of “wanted” pregnancies where the concept of “pre-natal” care is regularly applied and provided. But as we have seen over the years, efforts have been made (unfortunately successfully) to dehumanize the child within the womb–but only in the case of “unwanted” pregnancies, in order to make any focus on the baby’s health in such cases irrelevant. But merely ask yourself: how can a pre-born baby be a “clump of cells” in the case of an unwanted pregnancy, but somehow a “baby” in the case of a wanted pregnancy?

There is no denying that abortion is related to reproduction, but being related to something is not the same as being the same as or part of it. Abortion does not involve “care” and definitely is not a form of “healthcare,” as care is the act of preserving or maintaining persons and things. The barbaric practice of abortion results in the reverse of reproduction—it is specifically the act of not reproducing. It is the opposite of reproduction. It is “deathcare,” or anti-care, or perhaps non-care in the case of a child left to die in the case of “born alive” abortions. It should be clear to all (although I am aware that it is not) that the ending of the life of offspring is something that is very different from the production of offspring. While some (but not others) may choose to identify abortion as falling under the category of personal “choice,” it is does not constitute any part of the broad topic of reproductive care.

But wait a minute. Don’t women at least need to have “reproductive freedom” (i.e., the freedom to decide whether they choose to reproduce or not)? Yes, of course they do; and they have it. In the United States, all women are free to decide whether they want to engage in actions that will result in the creation of life. Under the law, women (and men) cannot be forced to engage in activity that will potentially result in the creation of a child. That in itself, is the essence of individual freedom.

Alternatively, abortion clearly does not belong under the heading of “reproductive freedom” or “reproductive justice” (terms which are routinely used in pro-choice circles and throughout “mainstream” media). This is because the practice of abortion necessarily involves life-ending decisions, and decisions of this nature do not involve individual “freedom” or “justice” for the plain and simple reason that they impact the lives of other individuals. Whether your source for answers is your conscience, the founding documents of the United States of America, or God’s word from the Bible, all living, growing, human men and women (including the gender-confused) have a fundamental and inalienable right to life (as in the “freedom” to not allow another person to end your life). In short, slapping a label on a human child of either “wanted” or “unwanted” should not determine the status of a child’s moral, legal or God-given rights. Sadly though, in some states across our country, it unfortunately does.

People who advance and make use of the term “reproductive care” in the context of an abortion discussion engage not only in intellectual dishonesty, but a severe form of it. If we were to administer polygraph tests each time this term is used, we would find that most people are in fact aware (recognizing that polygraph testing is an imperfect science) that the term “reproductive care” is both dishonest and inaccurate when used to describe an abortion. Nevertheless, some individuals continue to make use of it for the simple reason that it brings them to the result that they want. (It is important to acknowledge, though, that such people are not that different from the rest of us, given that as human beings we are all guilty of this practice at some point in our lives.)

So then, what does reproductive (health) care have to do with abortions? As there are no health benefits to elective abortions, the answer is nothing. Yes, it is certainly true that the psychological health of the mother can be impacted by pregnancy (and a women’s psychological health is important, and no doubt related to pregnancy), but being burdened by significant psychological issues doesn’t normally allow or permit the ending of a life (not even your own).

Similarly, what does reproductive freedom have to do with abortion? The answer is also nothing. No one, particularly helpless and completely vulnerable pre-born children (who are probably the most obvious category of humans that qualify under the heading of “the least among us”) should have their lives ended based on an argument that “I am going to take my own life, unless you assist me in ending theirs” (in other words, you can’t apply your “freedom to choose” at the expense of another human persons freedom to live). This type of situation has nothing to do with a person’s general freedom to make individual choices (i.e., choices that do not directly impact another) throughout the course of their lives.

Life is both beautiful and sacred, and even if you don’t agree with that statement, life should nevertheless still be protected, just the same as—from a self-preservation standpoint—we all believe that our own lives should receive protection, whether that be under God or under the laws of our great (and admittedly imperfect) country.

Photo Credit: Effingham Daily News