Few issues have fostered such controversy
as has the topic of abortion. The
participants in the abortion debate not only have firmly-fixed beliefs, but
each group has a self-designated appellation that clearly reflects what they
believe to be the essential issues. On
one side, the pro-choice supporters see individual choice as central to the
debate: If a woman cannot choose to
terminate an unwanted pregnancy, a condition which affects her body and
possibly her entire life, then she has lost one of her most basic human rights.
These proponents of abortion believe that while a fetus is a potential life,
its life cannot be placed on the same level with that of a woman. On the other side, the pro-life opponents of
abortion argue that the fetus is human and therefore given the same human
rights as the mother. Stated simply,
they believe that when a society legalizes abortion, it is sanctioning murder.
In today's more industrialized societies,
technology has simplified the abortion procedure to a few basic and safe
methods. Technology, however, has also
enhanced society's knowledge of the fetus.
Ultrasound, fetal therapy, and amniocentesis graphically reveal complex
life before birth, and it is this potential human life that is at the heart of
the debate.
In order to form an opinion on this matter, we
must first question and define several common factors which are numerously
debated.
I. When does human life begin?
Scientists identify the first moment of human
life as that instant when a sperm cell unites with an ovum or egg cell. The billions of cells that collectively make
up a human being are body cells. Unless
manipulated, these body cells are and remain what they appear to be: skin,
hair, bone, muscle, and so on. Each has
some worthy function in life and performs that function until it dies. Other rare cells, known as germ cells, have
the power to transform themselves into every other kind of human cell. The sex cells are the sperm cells in the male
and the egg cells in the female. It is
only in combination that these cells can create a fetus. The merger is complete within twelve hours,
at which time the egg is fertilized and becomes known as a "zygote,"
containing the full set of forty-six chromosomes required to create a new human
life. It is at that point that life
begins and should be respected with the same laws that apply to us all, whether
we are dependent on a womb or not.
Conception creates life and makes that life one of a kind.
The opposition would argue otherwise. To be a person, there must be evidence of a
personality. Animals contain biological
characteristics, but that does not qualify them as a person. It takes more than ten days after the
fertilization for the conceptus to become anything more than a hollow ball of
cells. During the first week, it is
free-floating and not even attached to the uterine wall. Not until the beginning of the fourth week
does a heart begin to beat, and then it is two-chambered like that of a
fish. Not until the end of the fifth
week is there evidence of the beginning of formation of the cerebral
hemispheres, and they are merely hollow bubbles of cells. The possession of forty-six chromosomes does
not make a cell a person. Most of the
cells of your body contain these forty-six chromosomes, but that does not make
a white corpuscle a person! If
possession of forty-six chromosomes make some thing a person, then it would
seem that possession of a different number would make something else. A personality is formed when a baby has
entered the world. It acts and reacts to
situations it is put upon and forms its opinions in that manner. It is only then that we can consider it a
unique person with a unique personality.
II. Is abortion immoral?
Pro-life activists would argue that the taking
of a human life is wrong no matter what the circumstances or in which
tri-mester it is done. The controversy
over abortion has avoided the real issue facing today's woman - her need to
grow beyond stereotypes. Whenever an
individual or group realizes it has been treated unjustly, the first reaction
is anger, but often the anger is first expressed as aggression. People outgrowing oppression have so much
stored-up bitterness, so many memories of powerlessness and so little knowledge
of how to make themselves heard, that violence toward others is the
result. The women's movement has been
caught up in the same process. American
men and women are among the most fair-minded on earth, but have slowly begun to
feel that 4,000 abortions a day is enough.
The abortion mentality has encouraged women to think of themselves as
victims. Much emphasis is placed on
pregnancy as a result of rape, even though the statistics show only about .1%
of all rapes actually result in conception.
That means that a large majority of pregnancies that resulted in
abortion were the result of free-choice.
The assumption is that a woman does not have control over her own body
until after a male partner is finished with it.
Only then does she hear talk of "rights." The term "pro-choice" evokes their
sense of fairness, but what is really being considered is the killing of an
innocent human life. Women are
abandoning the abortion mentality because it weakens their greatest strength -
creation. They are looking at
responsibilities as well as rights, choosing instead of reacting.
Pro-choice supporters argue that abortion
should be viewed as a sometimes necessary choice a woman must make in order to
be in charge of her life. Considering
pregnancy from a woman's point of view, it can be very dangerous to carry a
baby for ninth months with accompanying symptoms such as nausea, skin
discoloration, extreme bloating and swelling, insomnia, narcolepsy, hair loss,
varicose veins, hemorrhoids, indigestion, and irreversible weight gain. Equal rights is an issue the women's movement has fought for for many
years. Denying them the right to free
choice would demolish everything they have fought for and all the respect they
have gained as individuals.
III. The religious aspect.
The Church's judgment on abortion is neither
male nor female. It is social. It places the rights of the child in the womb
into the hands of the law which sees individual rights as inalienable. The relationship between morality and law, as
between Church and society, is surely complex.
The historical source of the Catholic teaching on abortion was
conviction of the early Christian community that abortion is incompatible with
and forbidden by the fundamental Christian norm of love, a norm which forbade
the taking of life. By the fifth
century, while the condemnation of abortion continued without diminishment,
distinctions were on occasion being drawn between abortion and homicide. Both were seen as grave sins, but not
necessarily exactly the same sin or to be subject to the same penalty. While theologians of the Eastern Church were
apparently the first explicitly to draw a distinction between the
"formed" and the "unformed" fetus, there quickly developed
a strong tradition against using the distinction to differentiate homicide and
abortion.
The substance of the Catholic position can be
summed up in the following principles:
(1) God alone is the lord of life. (2) Human beings do not have the
right to take the lives of other human beings. (3) Human life begins at the
moment of conception. (4) Abortion, at whatever the stage of development of the
conceptus, is the taking of innocent human life. The conclusion follows: Abortion is wrong.
IV. Can abortion be justified?
There are, indeed, several situations in which
abortion would seem necessary. Birth
defects, although rare, sometimes occur and must be dealt with in a personal
manner. If a woman knows she is going to
give birth to a mentally retarded baby, she is faced with the option of
aborting it. If she is not prepared to
give the retarded baby the attention and love it needs or if she cannot afford
to treat the babies problems, abortion would be the logical answer.
From the opposition: "It is only when we
love the handicapped that we can truly value every human life."
The anti-abortion movement believes that the
fetus, even in its embryonic stage of development, is human life and that any
deliberate termination of embryonic or
fetal life constitutes an "unjustified" termination of human
life. Conversely, proponents of
abortion deny that the fetus is human life, particularly during its embryonic
stage of development, and therefore believe that the termination of fetal life
does not constitute homicide. Further,
proponents of abortion justify the termination of fetal life by asserting that
the woman has the ultimate right to control her own body; that no individual
has any right to force a woman to carry a pregnancy that she does not want;
that parents have the moral responsibility and constitutional obligation to
bring into this world only children who are wanted, loved, and provided for, so
that they can realize their human potential; and that children have basic human
and constitutional rights, which include the right to have loving, caring
parents, sound health, protection form harm, and a social and physical
environment that permits healthy human development and the assurance of
"life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Conclusion: if a child cannot be cared for
properly, it should not be brought into this world.
Pro-life advocates sustain that a child,
originally unwanted, may cause a change of heart in his or her parents, and
should be born on that argument alone.
Children born in the face of hostile animus from their parents are not
crippled by that original unwantedness.
There are no clear signs that children first unwanted face abuse. Healthy, adaptive parenthood must be prepared
from the start to make one's own wants second to one's children's needs -
including the need to go on living.
If abortion were to become impossible again in
this country, the lives of the vast majority of American women would worsen
drastically. Many would be forced to
spend decades living a life that they did not want. For all women sexual activity, even within
marriage, would become a hateful risk.
The entire revolution in sex roles is built on low, controlled
fertility. Without abortion women could
not be in the labor force in increasing numbers, and having independent
careers. It is low fertility that makes
day care economically feasible for many families. The leaders of the anti-abortion campaign
emphasize the fetus' loss of life.
However, some of the same people oppose the revolution in sex roles, the
new freedom to express sexuality, and would make birth control illegal if they
could. Many of them make no secret of
their desire to see women return to obligatory domesticity and to a situation
in which they are afraid to have sex outside marriage. They believe that a ban on abortion would
further that agenda. It is certainly
possible that Congress will give the Catholic bishops their victory and make
abortion once again a crime. However, there
is so much at stake for women that there is little chance they will give up
abortions. If they have to get them
illegally, they will.
V. Should abortion remain a personal choice?
Whether abortion and birth control should be a
woman's decision has been a source of controversy throughout history. To defend the morality of choice for women is
not to deny reverence toward or appreciation for many women's deep commitment
to childbearing and shield nurturance.
It does ask that women collectively come to understand that genuine
choice with respect to power is a necessary condition of all women. When the day comes that the decision to bear
a child is a moral choice, then and only then, the human liberation of women
will be a reality.
Those who believe abortion should not be a
personal choice argue that the fetus is a separate entity form the woman who
carries it, and therefore entitled to the right to lice. They believe that women who choose to abort
do so primarily out of convenience, a fact which trivializes unborn human life.
VI. Abortion and the Constitution.
In decisions handed down on January 22, 1973,
the U.S. Supreme Court declared unconstitutional the Texas and Georgia abortion
laws. The Texas case, Roe v. Wade,
concerned a statue which restricted legal abortions to those deemed necessary
to save the woman's life. The Georgia
case, Doe v. Bolton, dealt with a state law permitting abortions only when
required by the woman's health, or to prevent birth of a deformed child, or
when pregnancy resulted form rape. The
court's invalidation of these laws implied that similarly restrictive laws in
most other states are also unconstitutional.
The Constitutional basis for Roe v. Wade is
found in the personal liberty guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment, in the
Bill of Rights and its penumbras. In Roe
v. Wade, the Supreme Court held that:
"right of privacy...founded in the
Fourteenth Amendment's concept of
personal liberty and
restrictions on state action...is broad enough to encompass
a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her preg- nancy."
Opponents of legal abortion do not see it as a
constitutional right. They argue that
the law places many limits on people's freedom of choice, and should do so in
the case of abortion. In fact, abortion
foes see the law favoring one set of legal rights, the woman's, over another's,
the unborn child's.
VII. Should abortion remain legal?
Since 1973, the proportion of women obtaining
abortions before the eighth week, and using the safest method, suction
curettage, has steadily increased. By
improving availability and accessibility, legalization has also contributed to
a significant decline in complications.
The second major consequence of the shift from illegal to legal abortion
has been to increase equity. Before
legalization, there was in fact not one legal abortion market, but two. Women with the knowledge and means could
usually obtain a reasonably safe abortion, performed by a physician. For women without information and funds, this
option was unavailable.
It is my personal opinion that abortion must
remain legal if we are to uphold the Constitution and respect women as equal
individuals. There already is wide
agreement that the single most important effect of legalization has been the
substitution of safe, legal procedures for abortions that formerly were
obtained illegally. This substitution
quickly led to a dramatic decline in the number of women who died or suffered
serious, sometimes permanent, injury. A
second, equally important, result of legalization concerns equity: before
abortion was legal, it was poor women, minority women, and very young women who
suffered most, since their only options often were delivery of an unwanted
child or a back-alley abortion.
Today the threat to women's lives and health no
longer comes from abortion. It comes
from those who want to outlaw it.
No comments:
Post a Comment