Spontaneous Abortion and Miscarriage are Not Justification for Targeted Terminations!

a response to the Star Tribune letter of the day: ending unwanted pregnancy is legitimate but never easy
by Colleen Tronson

I am stunned that Rev. Kendyl Gibbons (Letter of the Day, January 9, 2011) attempts to validate the use of elective abortion because a pregnancy is “unintended” by pointing out the large numbers of natural pregnancy losses in our nation. As a woman who aborted three pregnancies, I have never experienced a “spontaneous abortion” (prior to 20 weeks gestation) or miscarriage (after 20 weeks), and I would be mortified to compare my deliberate choices with the losses other women experience due to spontaneous abortions/miscarriages.

Women who experience natural pregnancy disruptions do not intentionally choose this outcome, while other women like myself deliberately choose to terminate via elective abortion. Yes, there are some women who are coerced into abortion against their will, but most of us are mistresses of our own choices. It is wrong to equate targeted termination (elective abortion) with natural pregnancy loss when one is primarily about choice and the other is clearly about chance.

The failure of conception to result in a live birth is in no way comparable to the human carnage of abortion on demand in our state. According to the 2009 Report to the State Legislature on Induced Abortion in Minnesota, more than 13,000 targeted terminations occurred in 2009. The main reasons stated for these terminations were that the mother did not want more children or for economic reasons.

If natural miscarriage or early pregnancy loss does not allow a live birth, that is one thing, but let’s not use those numbers to justify the intentional targeting of over 13,000 pregnancies that overwhelmingly, could have been brought to term. According to the above mentioned report less then 1,400 of the 2009 terminations were done due to physical health or impairment of bodily functions of the mother or due to fetal anomalies (which may or may not have been life threatening for the child).

Rev. Gibbons says there is no reason why “human aspiration and necessity shouldn't be a factor in determining whether or not a particular pregnancy is brought to term.” I strongly disagree because neither of those reasons--human aspiration or human necessity--considers the fate of the one being targeted: the preborn human child.