Birth to death, the right to life is a big issue for Republicans. A woman’s right to choose brings the Democratic Party to mind. The Libertarian platform, which speaks to harming no other’s life or property, is silent (at this time) on the issue of abortion. It seems to be a topic that polarizes extremists and keeps moderates quiet. A subject which desperately needs the input of real people in real situations has the most reasonable, rational people zip-lipped. I am, for the record, a pro-choice libertarian, and I am disturbed by the fact that a woman’s choice in a private medical matter is such a divisive issue for our country.
Nazia, the name by which the two month old is known, died today. She died from a surgical procedure to remove two fetuses from her womb. She was apparently one of triplets in the womb. Rather than forming along with her in the mother’s womb, the sibling fetuses grew inside of her womb. The news reports that the fetuses were partially grown and at about 4 months gestation. This particular procedure would be protected in South Dakota (I assume) as the mother (sister) life was endangered and the fetuses were not “alive”.
With an occurrence rate of 1/500,000, fetus-in-fetu can not be considered common. With my non-existent medical training, I can only rely on my own uneducated review of medical cases. My reading leads me to believe that fetus-in-fetu is not necessarily a dead fetus inside the host. I found a case in which a fetus, inside its teenaged brother host, had eyes, hair and teeth. How would this be presented to SD?
I bring these things up only to question one thing. At what point can we agree that government mandating a woman (or any person) carry a fetus to term is an over-step of authority? At what point can we agree that terminating a life in-utero is acceptable? While fetus-in-fetu could (and should) be considered an extreme condition, what about a fetus in the womb of a mother who happens to have a genetically debilitating condition? What about the fetus in the womb of a mother who doesn’t desire motherhood?
I know women who have had to make hard choices. I know of a woman, an immigrant from Russia, who made a decision to terminate a pregnancy based on the practicality of the timing. She had a husband and daughter in a new land. I know a woman, a carrier of a severe genetic mutation who, after an amnio, had to make the painful choice of a “therapeutic” abortion. She tried so hard to become pregnant and her grief is something that will pierce my soul forever. And, I know me. I was in love with an ex-boyfriend who was awesome- but not the one. We weren’t irresponsible — my family tree has many branches of birth control babies — we are fertile people. I terminated the pregnancy and have lost no sleep over it. We are both with partners better suited to us. He has a child he adores. My husband and I were certain about our desire of babies and fixed permanently the issue of birth control.
Whether a woman carries to term a pregnancy should not be an issue decided by government or majority vote. Public opinion changes every election season. Hourly, if you count the news as accurate. South Dakota may be trying to right the world, but human involvement is needed to measure the cost. Unfortunately, the law leaves none of the wriggle room needed for real life situations. Sometimes we need a person with guts enough to say, “Not another freaking law!”
Where are you already? South Dakota is waiting.