There seems to be little doubt that a fetus is a fetus, an infant is an infant, a youth is a youth, an adult is an adult—all of whom comprise identity. Break any link and that identity ceases to be. That the catastrophic leanings of nature flagrantly violates this chain at will is hardly an argument that human nature should intervene indiscriminately.

The argument that "Thou Shalt Not Kill" covers all instances because rightly mandated by God or some high moral principle is equally absurd: there is no evidence other than common sense that life is inherently valued, and out of self-preservation laws are laid down to protect that intuitive rationale of the natural matrix. If all self-conscious existence comprised of but two people both equal, the law would stand; but if life were comprised of two people unequal, there would be no law —the strong in this Hobbesian ambiance would exercise his will to power.

The private domain of each individual consciousness runs its course, much as the latter instance. He is seldom operating cybernetically— each component functioning in perfect balance--he makes mistakes, injures himself, abuses himself, is impatient with himself, leaves himself vulnerable. He either repeats the same mal-functions or probes to correct them. A woman who is pregnant and wishes she weren't, wills that this mal-function be corrected. One who hits his thumb with a hammer is not as fortunate; he can only rectify the condition the next time, presently he must suffer. In like manner, some still argue in the case of pregnancy: exercise more caution the next time; in the meantime, suffer.

However, if abortion belonged to the private domain, it would be no one’s business. The woman could flush it down the toilet much as one would tend to other toilet matters. Unfortunately, nature can be as stubborn with its products as it is careless. The woman does need assistance and must intrude on the public domain, just as one must im pose on one’s hairstylist to get the tangles out. When she visits her physician, he challenges her will with “Honey, you’re not sick, you’re pregnant.” Still, she is sick; to her the diagnosis of fetus is dead wrong; she has a tumor and wants it removed. Psycho-therapy may cure her “unhealthy” view—she may indeed be convinced she is not sick or that she will not die or that she will not be humiliated and thus announce happily and healthfully that she is going to have a baby.

What if a psychosomatic were convinced unalterably that his appendix was going to burst; that his anxieties were so great that he showed symptomatic pain? What if the psychiatrist were convinced that the only course of action was indeed an appendectomy? One would be tempted to say to the surgeon “Go ahead—what harm is there? If success were guaranteed, by all means get on with it. Even if there were no guarantee, it might still be the wiser course if no other alternative were presented. After all, it is not a leg or a lung. Or perhaps just “staging” an appendectomy would suffice, except there is the risk of the patient discovering the fraud which may lead to more serious symptoms.

One might here suggest that in some cases wherein “unjustified” anxiety over pregnancy exists, psycho-therapy might and should be the solution. In the overwhelming majority of cases, however, the patient simply “wants out”. The unwanted fetus is a tumor that must be removed. If a physician is to be true to his Hippocratic oath in the framework of modern demands, he should oblige. Yet the doctor could well be within his right to object that there is an unjustified demand on his time; that the woman will get over it, will survive the nine months in good health; that there are plenty of couples waiting in line to take the child away.

The woman, of course, doesn't have to refrain from pulling the plug. It may be noble, but there is no law—moral or otherwise— that one must give blood, not even within the family. Those who do argue that there should be this law are strangely silent when a kidney or eye transplant is the issue: their argument, I suppose, giving birth is a moral duty, transplants a discretionary sacrifice. The selfless principle applies to the doctor as well; for he is not obligated to perform the abortion. In addition, he has the ambivalence of the Hippocratic oath to support him:

" I will prescribe regimen for the good of my patients...and never do harm to anyone....Nor will I give a woman a pessary to procure abortion."

There is probably strong evidence then that the risk of abortion was high and therefore Hippocrates was consistent. Nevertheless, the physician can still argue that he is confronted with two patients within whose matrix he must prescribe.

On the other hand, if a physician is pure of spirit in one instance, it would seem logical that he should be consistent. Why, for example, do so many physicians waste their time prescribing for common colds and other minor ailments when chances of serious complications are minimal for the average healthy person; could their time not be better spent in qualitative bed-side manners with patients who really require their skills? What convincing justification is there for plastic surgery, other than serious malformations, that is predominantly and whimsically cosmetic; or silicone injections for the flat breasted? Why does an ophthalmologist waste over fifty percent of his time prescribing glasses when his surgical magic is needed more? Why does the state insist that a physician be assigned to a school for physicals when a school nurse is just as competent in handling ninety-nine percent of the examinations? Obviously all of these activities can be justified but how convincingly beyond isolated instances?

Whether or not those of us not directly involved and therefore can afford the luxury of “objectivity”, believe abortion good or bad, just or unjust, in reality, it is neither. It just happens to be one of these damnable nuisances that pop-up from time to time, like Woodstock and Nixon, toll-gates and traffic jams. It is but accidental that abortion is in the public domain—what if masturbation produced a fetus, do you think anyone would think twice before stomping on it?

When some ingenious woman discovers the secret of safe, self-administered surgery, the issue will be no more. I wonder how many women already have the secret; or how many have discovered how to fall down the stairs “safely”? It is obvious, then, that the state, since it exists to serve its citizens, should discourage taboos of abortion aimed at harassing victims and at the same time encourage prevention, just as the state does in traffic prevention yet does not deny the citizen an ambulance in the event of an accident. But why bother to encourage prevention at all? In addition to the disposal problem, the state does have an obligation to instruct its citizens in values, there is after all, better ways to think, to live.

For citizens to indulge indiscriminately in life-making, only to deny that life, is wasteful, unconscionable and contradictory; just as indulging in love-making, only to deny the beloved sincere love, is chauvinism, male or female. Life and love are the summation of values: to desecrate either for the sake of the other is unmitigated flouting unbecoming humans. Still, by self-righteous moralizing leading once more to barbaric back alley abortions, God help the poor girl who hears lingering cries muffled under the lid of the garbage can.