By Garen Yegparian
Yup–I’m doin’ it–takin’ the plunge–and hittin’ one of the biggies–ABORTION. Hell–it might even prompt someone to reply with a letter to the editor!
You may have heard it in Armenian as vizhoom–but that’s used for "miscarriage" as well–which is a passive event as opposed to the active intervention required for a vizhetzoom.
At least among those with any sense–decency–and compassion–I hope no one is left who questions that abortions should be readily available–safe–and private.
Certainly there can be no question in cases of rape and incest. And certainly in cases of minors–some parental involvement–engagement–and moral support may be required. Equally certainly the lunatic fringe in this country trying to impose its sense of what’s ‘right’ by banning abortion–ought to find a time machine and return to the period that spawned the Victorian (I’m being nice–I could have said Neandethal–you now those Europe-dwelling pre-humans who went extinct) notions they espouse–just to see how they like life under those circumstances. Finally–abortion ought not become a form of birth control for lack of proper–inexpensive–and readily available means to the same end. This unfortunate situation seems to have existed even in Armenia–and likely most of the former-Soviet zone. It may even persist there to this day.
Basically–abortion is here to stay and is not something that should even be a bone of contention.
However–there is one circumstance that has stumped me for at least a decade–and for which I’ve still no solution. When we say it’s a woman’s body and it’s her right to choose–we neglect–overlook–or disregard one very real condition–only females of the human’species can bear children (at least for the foreseeable future–who knows what science will bring us temporally further out)–males cannot.
So the conundrum is when two consenting adults have conceived a child–especially if both initially intended to rear it–what gives one partner the right to unilaterally decide otherwise? What happens to the other’s stake in the matter? Remember–the male has no choice. He can’t go off and get pregnant and bear a child. In essence–there exists a biological compact between the two. Conversely–it is absolutely true that it is an onerous imposition on the female. Not being a lawyer–I don’t know if case law exists on parallel issues that might shed some light on this–at least in a US context.
In oral discussions of this topic–I’ve encountered many argumen’s minimizing the import of this circumstance. However–it is an issue–no matter how small a slice of the whole abortion pie it may represent.
Let’s hear it. What do you think?