Abortion: A Woman's Choice
Abortion: A Woman's Choice
Some of these circumstances are happy for all concerned: both parents wish to have a child at that time and the child will grow up happy and healthy. But the circumstances surrounding conception are not always so happy. The parents are unprepared for the responsibilities, the
mother could be the victim of rape, or for that matter the father could be her father. The fetus might have a severe mental defect which would make its life ant that of the mother and father unrelieved misery. Pregnancy can occur in tragic circumstances, in which we would say that it would have been better if it had not happened.
Of the many actual points of view, it is widely held - especially in the media, which rarely have the time or the inclination to make fine distinctions - that there are only two: "pro-choice" and "pro-life." This is what the two principal warring camps like to call themselves, and that's what I'll call them here.
Up until recent times (within that last century and a half) there were no prohibitions against abortion, and it was common in ancient Greece and Rome. In our own country, from colonial times to the nineteenth century, the choice was the woman's until "quickening." An abortion in
the first or even second trimester was at worst a misdemeanor. Convictions were rarely sought and almost impossible to obtain, because they depended entirely on the woman's own testimony of whether she had felt quickening, and because of the jury's distaste for prosecuting a woman for exercising her right to choose. In 1800 there was not, so far as is known, a single statute in the United States concerning abortion. Advertisements for drugs to induce abortion could be found in virtually every newspaper and even in many church publications--although the language used was suitably euphemistic, if widely understood.
Their assault on abortion was motivated not by concern for the health of the woman but, they claimed, for the welfare of the fetus. You had to be a physician to know when abortion was morally justified, because the question depended on scientific and medical facts understood only
by physicians. At the same time, women were effectively excluded from the medical schools, where such arcane knowledge could be acquired. So, as things worked out, women had almost nothing to say about terminating their own pregnancies.
Which brings us to a key debate in the abortion issue: exactly who shall be a "moral agent," the party who decides whether or not an abortion is right or wrong. Here the question is not whether abortion is right or wrong, but rather, who decides? The real moral issue is: ho has the right to force a woman to ...
This is a preview of the whole essay
by physicians. At the same time, women were effectively excluded from the medical schools, where such arcane knowledge could be acquired. So, as things worked out, women had almost nothing to say about terminating their own pregnancies.
Which brings us to a key debate in the abortion issue: exactly who shall be a "moral agent," the party who decides whether or not an abortion is right or wrong. Here the question is not whether abortion is right or wrong, but rather, who decides? The real moral issue is: ho has the right to force a woman to have a child she doesn't want?
The individual woman or the government? As only women can get pregnant, and therefore only women have abortions, a male legislator has no right to vote on an abortion-related law. This conjures up the specter of predominantly affluent white male, Christian, earining over
$50,000 per year legislators telling poor women they must bear and raise alone children they cannot afford to bring up; forcing teenagers to bear children they are not emotionally prepared to deal with; saying to women who wish for a career that they must give up their dreams, stay home, and bring up babies; and, worst of all, condemning victims of rape and incest to carry and nurture the offspring of their assailants. Legislative prohibitions on abortion arouse the suspicion
that their real intent is to control the independence and sexuality of women.
The old order is built upon woman's choiceless submission to her biological destiny and traditional sex role. Freeing women shakes up the old order as it changes roles, values, and thus the structures of power. Abortion is such a volatile issue in part because it erodes the very underpinnings of the old moral order. For many women, untimely motherhood makes it difficult for them to continue their education, to secure a job or to pursue a career. Abortion allows women to control when and if they will be mothers and to be in as much control of their own destiny as possible. Unless she has this right, she can never attain equal status with men, for pregnancy has a dramatic impact on her life. Our body is not like a coat which we can put on and take off at will.
It is though our body that we weave the person that we are. If another being controls our body, we have no possibility of self determination, perhaps the most basic right of a person. Thus, if the law can control a woman's body by prohibiting abortion, it is violating its most basic obligation to the woman. It denies the personhood of the woman in whose body the fetus lives, and deprives her of the protection of the law. It denies her personhood because it invades her bodily integrity,
which is the basis of her personal independence. Wherever the forces of authoritarianism win on this issue, women everywhere will suffer.
Choice is generally a good thing; people should have the right to choose how to run their lives, including whether to have a child or not - it is a question of personal freedom. Indeed, freedom and life are two of our most cherished values, and here they seem to be in fundamental conflict. However, the pro-life group wants you to think, instead, 'No its wrong to take an innocent human life; people shouldn't be allowed to erase life at will - that is murder.' Thus the issue becomes: do you believe in choice or in life? The greatest of human freedoms is choice. And I believe no one has the right to take that freedom away. What's life without choice? Who would want to live a life without choice? Or for that matter, would it be a life worth living?
Life is a developmental process, from conception to death. But when does personhood begin? Even if the fetus is not yet a person, it is still a form of human life. Therefore, the question of personhood is key to the abortion debate. When does the fetus become human? When do
distinct and characteristic human qualities emerge? When the lungs have reached a stage of development sufficient that the fetus might, just conceivably, be able to breathe on its own in the outside air? The contending groups call on science to bolster their positions. Yet,
personhood is a concept that is incapable of empirical proof. No biological moment in human development that signals the beginning of personhood.
The statement, "Life begins at conception. A fetus is a person and therefore, abortion is murder," demonstrates most clearly why abortion is fundamentally a religious issue. Despite attempts to "prove" scientifically that life begins at conception, most medical and theological authorities agree that such a conclusion can be reached only by religious reasoning. Yet public policy must recognize diversity in faiths. Groups, such as the Catholic Church, believe there is a universal truth that applies to everyone, regardless of the individual's particular conviction. I would say that if you're opposed to abortion, don't have one, but don't try to impose your morality on others. Since nobody knows for certain when life actually begins, people should follow their own moral convictions and religious teachings on the abortion issue.
Yet there are religions that do respect a woman's freedom of choice. The American Baptist Churches, USA state, "In our Baptist tradition, the integrity of each person's conscience must be protected. Therefore, we believe that abortion must be a matter of responsible, personal decision." And the American Jewish Congress believe
"The fundamental right to privacy applies to contraception, to avoid unintended pregnancy as well as to freedom of choice on abortion to prevent an unwanted birth."
Furthermore, there are individuals who believe that what is moral depends on the particular circumstances. The reason abortion is moral is very simple, although its implications are complex: forcing any woman to have a child she doesn't want is harmful to the woman and all of society. It means creating another unwanted, potentially uncared-for child, while limiting the woman's potential, including the potential of her present and future motherhood.
When does the blob cease to be a blob and become an appropriate object of moral concern? Abortion then resembles contraception. I think you will have to concede that the life of a "potential human" is very different and does not have the same rights as an actual human. It is not its potential degree of sentience, since even the unjoined sperm and egg have potential. So if a sperm and egg are as human as the fertilized egg produced by their union, and if it is murder to destroy a fertilized egg - despite the fact that it's only potentially a baby - why isn't it murder to destroy a sperm or an egg? Hundreds of millions of sperm cells are produced in an average human ejaculation. A healthy young man can produce in a week or two enough spermatozoa to
double the human population of the Earth. So is masturbation mass murder?
By far the most common reason for abortion worldwide is birth control. So shouldn't opponents of abortion be handing out contraceptives and teaching school children how to use them? That would be an effective way to reduce the number of abortions. And yet, opposition to sex
education has come from the same people who oppose abortions.
The conclusion I seem to be coming to is that many unplanned pregnancies result in wanted, loved and healthy children, but that is not always the case. Few controversies in this century have stirred emotions or threatened social stability like the one over abortion rights. The pro-choice case is a complicated one. Opinion varies as to when a fetus becomes a person and as to when and under what circumstances choosing the abortion option may be moral. Abortion is a very personal decision - seldom, if ever taken lightly - and one which should be made with responsibility. And any decision for an abortion should be made as early as possible, for reasons of the woman's health and safety. However, there is a consensus that the direction to continue or to terminate a problem pregnancy should be left up to the individual woman.
