Thursday, March 12, 2009

Was it a Healthy Spontaneous Miscarriage?

By charlie reese

While abortion is the cause of many a protest from pro life groups, any pregnancy, terminated by whatever means, is one of the unanswered questions in this national controversy. However, when a woman suffers a spontaneous miscarriage, through no fault or intent on her part, almost everyone, from both camps of thought, feel pity for this woman. She has lost a baby, a human life growing within her. She may even die of the complications of hemorrhaging. Who can know what caused this spontaneous miscarriage?

Women who are nutritionally deficient, or mentally traumatized, may simply not have the physical or emotional wherewithal to bring a pregnancy to fruition. Genetic factors may also play a role. A genetic predisposition to miscarriage may be at fault. Extreme stress may also precipitate a spontaneous miscarriage. This can occur at any point during the pregnancy, most often during the first or second trimester. In the case of an unwanted pregnancy, such as might exist in the case of rape or incest, the psychological impact might so influence the woman's body, that a spontaneous miscarriage might occur, with no conscious input on the woman's behalf. In the case of a genetic predisposition, the woman's body may simply not to be able to provide the nurturing environment a growing baby requires.

Here is where the interesting question arises. If a woman is unable, physically or emotionally, to bring that baby to birth and life, is she to blame? Are we to assume that a spontaneous miscarriage is murder? Is such a woman blameless, or should she be cast in the role of a woman who chooses to terminate a pregnancy through abortion? Some schools of psychology promote the idea that people may unconsciously desire a certain outcome to a situation, while consciously seeming to have an opposite desire and that their unconscious wish is fulfilled as a method of avoiding feelings of guilt. Could this theory apply to a case of spontaneous miscarriage? How might this be conclusively be determined, one way or the other?

Why, in the case of miscarriage, are not women forced to submit to psychological tests, hypnosis or lie detector tests in order to satisfy the pro lifers position? While this may sound like a ridiculous proposition, this concept would take the pro life argument to an indiscriminate and logical conclusion. The premise of this argument is that a woman who consciously chooses abortion may be now discriminated against, unfairly. If it is possible to suffer a miscarriage through a purely unconscious will to bring about a desired conclusion, why should the pro life advocates not apply their premise of murder to all pregnancies that do not go to term?

Aside from the particular issue of abortion, it's well known that there is a phenomena known as mind over matter. If it's possible for a person to perform superhuman feats when faced with an emergency or crises, such as lifting a car to save a person trapped beneath, you must accept the possibility of a miscarriage occurring through an unconscious will to do so.

The point here is that when a woman consciously decides to terminate a pregnancy, for whatever personal reasons, she may simply be more emotionally prepared to make that decision than another woman lacking that emotional stability and the ability to make a rational decision. In both cases, the result is the same. That child is not born.

The final conclusion from this writer's perspective, is that this is a personal choice for each woman, one that only she must live with, for good or ill. So what's the difference between a spontaneous miscarriage, a spontaneous abortion and a conscious decision to abort a pregnancy? - 14130

About the Author:

No comments: