Abortion: Pro- Life or Pro- Choice?

        Suppose that the mother’s life, physical health, or mental health is threatened.  When a woman’s life is threatened, she does have the right to terminate the pregnancy in self-defense.  In these situations, the fetus has become an unjust aggressor.  Catholic morality then defines this as indirect abortion, which can be justified by the principle of double effect.

        What about women who are victims, whether it is by rape or incest?  If a woman is violently or unjustly taken out of her element and forced to perform sexual acts, in which she becomes pregnant, I feel that she has every right to abort the baby.  In this situation, no matter what choice the woman makes, she loses.  If she continues the pregnancy, she will have to carry around the consequence of forceful sex with her for the duration of her pregnancy.  If she keeps the baby, she will have to look at her child and know that the baby was not conceptual.  If she gives the baby up for adoption, then she will probably never see her baby again, and will be torn in despair.  If she gets an abortion, she is then considered a whore or damned to hell for all eternity, in the eyes of the public.  In this situation, women should have the right to choose.

        Women also consider abortions when the environmental status is unhealthy.  Examples of unhealthy environments include, and are certainly not limited to, abusive relationships, poor economic status, lack of economic means, lack of support, or inopportune times.  In times like this, questions arise to the couple or to the mother herself such as, “How can I adequately take care of this child?”  In situations where the child is not wanted, other questions are raised, such as, “Is it fair to bring unwanted children into the world?”  Defenders of abortion say that no unwanted child should be brought into the world.  

        One of the stronger voices for pro-choice comes from today’s feminist groups.  They argue that the legal and moral bans on abortion are a matter of males oppressing women.  It is believed that nature and the male dominated society discriminate against women, and abortion is seen as one of the many ways in which this occurs.  Feminists argue that women have the right and need to control their bodies.  This includes personal decisions, such as reproduction and the decision to have children or proceed with an abortion.  Women argue that men, against the wishes of women, created the moral and legal prohibition on abortion.  Evidence for this belief comes from the fact that clergy had the greatest say on morality.  Until recently, members of the clergy have been exclusively male.  Laws prohibiting abortion were passed in the later half of the nineteenth century, when there were no women in legislature.  Statements from feminists include that, “…the only way women will be able to have complete control over their bodies and the choice to reproduce is if she has free access to abortion.”  In certain aspects, nature and society treat men and women differently.  This negative discrimination against women can not begin to be eliminated without allowing women access to abortion.

        While some argue that abortion is morally wrong, others will continue to argue that the only way to completely achieve freedom is to recognize the need and desire for abortion to be legal.  From this conclusion, I hypothesize that making abortion a limited choice would remove the bitter arguments from both sides of this issue, because the woman, herself, could seek the use of an abortion in extreme cases, such as rape, incest, or in the case of endangering the health of herself.  If the public is better educated on the use of contraceptives, such as male or female condoms, birth control pill, and spermicide, then they will protect themselves the next time they choose to engage in sexual acts, thus reducing the need for abortions.