Abortion And Society
Since the Darwinian Revolution of the 19th
century our society has turned upside
down. Everything under the sun had
become questionable, the origin of life, how
we came to be, where are we
headed and what to do in the here all became
questions in life. But one of
the greatest impacts of this new age thinking is
its effect on our Old World
values. Western societies values, morals and ethics
became debatable, with
some people striving for change and others clinging for
stability. Battle
lines had been drawn and the Liberals and Conservatives were
ready to duke it
out on a number of issues. One of these debates centers on a
woman’s right to
have and abortion. According to the Webster’s dictionary
and abortion is
defined as a miscarry, something misshapen or unnatural. An
abortion is a
procedure in which an embryo or fetus is prohibited from
developing by
artificial means. One could argue that this is next to murder. How
can we as
a society sanction the murdering of developing babies? Also it can
equally be
stated that abortion is unnatural and a health hazard to women who
have
undergone the procedure. Whatever the case, abortion should be
outlawed
because it is immoral and mothers should face the responsibilities
of their
actions. Many arguments can be used in order to put an end to
abortion or at
least in order to establish dialogue. One of the oldest
arguments against
abortion is the religious standpoint. Western society
(Canada & U.S.A.) is
historically a Judeo-Christian culture with
Judeo-Christian values. Although in
recent times we have become an
increasingly pluristic society the Old World
thinking is still at the heart
of our social relations and laws. The Bible says
"Thou shalt not kill"
thus prohibiting people from harming others or
themselves. Abortion and its
advocates violate this law. They seek to change one
of the most fundamental
values of our society. Pro-choice under this stance is
equated with murder
and "playing God". One may raise the question, how can a
minority inflict its
views of the majority? According to Francis X. Meenan, this
is a false
assumption. He goes on to claim that those who favor abortion on
demand are
the real minority (Bender & Leone, 97). He also claims that the
issue of
abortion is a moral debate and cannot be settled by numbers. So even
if
pro-choice advocates outnumbered pro-life advocates, this would prove or
settle
nothing (Bender & Leone, 97). This stance claims that we should
focus more
on moral principals and eradicate the practice of abortion in our
society. The
Biblical understanding of life isn’t the only religious
argument that opposes
abortion and its practice. Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam
and many other world faiths
have a similar stance on the topic at hand.
Hinduism claims that the soul enters
the embryo at the time of conception and
abortion should hence be outlawed
except in the case of rape or incest.
Buddhism takes a similar stance and claims
abortion is "murdering", yet also
states that each case should be
individually analyzed. Islam considers
abortion as a moral crime and sees life
(its start finish) as the
jurisdiction of God. Islamic law states that abortion
is illegal except in
those situations in which the woman’s life is in
jeopardy. The question that
arises after examining these numerous perspectives
is how can these practices
which violate or threaten our fundamental beliefs be
tolerated? The critics
of the ant-abortion perspective, "pro-choice", have
arguments of their own.
First and foremost they argue that biblical law and its
perspectives are
codes of life for believers and in a pluralistic society this
view shouldn’t
be a reference or a deciding factor. One could imagine how it
would be to
have another foreign view imposed on us so why would anyone impose
their
views on others or the society at large? Other pro-choice arguments have
went
to claim that abortion isn’t immoral because morality is subjective
hence
people decide on their own what is moral or immoral. According to
Daniel C.
Maguire, even religious people can disagree on abortion. One
ground for going
against religion as an argument against abortion is the fact
that the Church is
dominated by male influence (bender & Leone, 101).
Maguire wants to know how
and why men have the authority to dictate what
women decide to do with their
bodies (Bender & Leone, 101). Is it "life"
they seek to protect or is it
the female "sexuality" they wish to control?
The Catholic Code of Canon
excommunicates one for aborting a fertilized egg,
but not for killing a baby
after birth. This hypocrisy thus discredits the
religious argument against
abortion. The counter-criticism, which in turn
disproves of abortion claims that
advocates of pro-choice are imposing their
values on the greater population and
not the other way around. In my opinion
this is a good counter-strike because
too often pro-choice individuals claim
that the other side is being closed
minded and yet seem to neglect their own
errors. The second argument, which
opposes abortion, states that abortion
shouldn’t be a woman’s personal
choice. Women only play one role in having a
baby. There is a man’s role
involved and there is a new life, which under the
banner of abortion would be
extinguished. A pro-abortionist denies humanity
to the fetus at all, a stance
that shows a lack of moral character (Wennberg,
57). This perspective states
that the growing fetus is an autonomous life
form that has its own rights
regardless and separate of the woman. I would
argue that females who have
undergone an abortion have infringed on the life
of another human being in order
to satisfy their own needs. Other arguments
opposing abortion state that if we
keep abortion legal it will become a
choice ethic or a new form of birth control
(Wennberg, 9). Life will be a
privilege only for a chosen few, the value of
human life will be cheapened
with people only having babies when it is
convenient. Critics of this
argument claim abortion should be a woman’s
personal choice. They state that
true woman’s liberation is intertwined with
the right to bear children or the
decision to abort their unborn child at will (Saarni,
104). Further
claims have stated that the pro-choice argument is embedded in a
larger issue
which the dominant male-oriented society wants to avoid, that being
feminism
(Wennberg, 68). This statement regards abortion as a social issue which
opens
the doors for women’s liberation and gives them power to make decisions
in
their own life. As one could imagine this isn’t a view that would be
favored
by male society. Other criticism claims that women who are opposed
to
abortion do so because they value human well being and those politicians
who
seek to outlaw abortion come in the name of "family values" (Saarni,
115).
Thus pro-choice isn’t seen as a stance, which is concerned, about
the well
being of people. In a quest to establish a woman’s choice the
government is
viewed as a powerful entity. Perhaps the issue of choice should
be left to the
individual instead of the state (Wennberg, 82). In my opinion
the right to bear
children or not shouldn’t be just a woman’s decision. Why
must women’s
liberation be related to her independent choice and not with a
socially
intellectual choice where all parties find a middle ground? The
statement that
the abortion argument is a part of a larger sphere, which
includes feminism and
that the powers that be are trying to put an end to
this, is based on
speculation. If this were true why is it that women have
gained power all across
the board in all walks of life only to be oppressed
in this issue. As for the
women who seek the well being for life they
naturally side up with the pro-life
perspective. To claim that politicians
with their own personal agendas are
manipulating these women is saying that
these women value life alongside their
male counter parts and that is the
reasoning why many strive towards pro-life.
The argument that legal
abortion harms public health is yet another reason to
re-evaluate the case of
abortion. The fact is that abortion is a complicated
procedure that can harm
a woman’s body, disabling from bearing children.
Complications include
hemorrhaging and laceration of the cesuix (Richardson,
36). Other studies
done by Stallworthy, Moolga, Oker and Walsh have reported the
complications
that occurred during 1,182 legal abortions. While their where no
deaths, 9.5%
of the patients required blood transfusions, 4.2% had cervical
lacerations
and 1.2% of the patients uteri were perforated. Post-abortion
infection
occurred in 27% of these women. Other complications in pregnancy and
with
abortions state that there is a correlation between pre-mature birth and
a
woman’s exposure to abortion (Richardson, 42). This perhaps has to do with
the
fact that the cervix could be damaged after the use of instruments to
perform
abortion (Richardson, 42). In my opinion the facts speak for
themselves.
Abortion decreases public health and is a dangerous
procedure. Other arguments
for abortion stem from claims that abortion
actually guards public safety by
providing an outlet for young women who
would have otherwise had a "back
alley" abortion (Richardson, 57). Advocates
of this argument would most likely
state that since the legalization of
abortion an account of accurate records has
been kept thus catering to health
concerns. Other statements claim that since
1973 the number of women,
percentage wise, who are using safer methods has
increased (Richardson, 51).
In my personal opinion these arguments simply state
how legalized abortion
has reduce the black market. It doesn’t attempt to
debate on the ethics of
the matter, or doesn’t mention the risk factor
associated with abortion. I’m
sure military force monitoring our cities could
reduce crime, yet is this a
solution which server the best interest? To argue
that society is better off
with legalized abortion because it reduces the black
market isn’t a very good
solution. It is a decision that is poor, unethical,
and most of all a
tremendous health hazard. Another argument, which is often
cited as a
justification for abortion, is one’s economic concerns. Many women
who get
pregnant but are poor are the first to get an abortion. It seems like
that
the struggles of modern life create an obstacle for those women in which
a
child becomes a burden (Saarni, 17). Is this what our society has come to?
Is
this the condition of our mothers? It seems like more and more women
are
redirected towards abortion as a solution to their problems (Saarni, 19).
Human
life now comes with a price tag, it is no longer regarded as sacred but
is seen
as a disposable entity when "the going gets tough". Society no longer
values
life and is willing to, or demanding that women, especially poor or
black women
control the number of babies they have or the government will
control it for
them (Saarni, 24). The critics take the other stance and claim
that economics is
one of the most important reasons we should keep legal
abortions. Legal
abortions provides an avenue for underprivileged women who
cannot support
another child in this world (Saarni, 29). They claim that
abortion is in the
best interest for the mother, child and the taxpayers
(Saarni, 29). They also
claim that abortion services are an equalizer which
maintain low birth rates
amongst today’s women (Saarni, 30). This means that
women us abortion as a
method of birth control, which enables them to remain
independent, carry out a
career, and live a free-spirited life. I personally
believe that economics
isn’t a good reason to abort a life. If one can’t
afford to bring a life
into this world then take all necessary precautions to
make sure you won’t get
pregnant. I don’t think abortion is in the best
interest of anyone but the
selfish mother who has willingly destroyed the
life of an unborn baby. Finally,
it’s a shame if modern women feel that
abortion is some sort of birth control.
It is unfortunate that life isn’t
valued like it once was and that
independence and financial gain gave become
the new objectives in life. It is
perhaps this mentality to equate abortion
with birth control and thus female
liberation that is the most dangerous to
traditional family values. What does
this say about us as a society when we
begin to murder our own and then claim
that we are modern and civilized? In
conclusion, abortion has many ominous
consequences and show how the very
moral fiber of our society is disintegrating.
It is a moral crime, a
crime to the unborn child, a crime to society as a whole
and therefor should
be outlawed.
Bibliography
1. Abortion Opposing Viewpoints, David
L. Bender & Bruno Leone,
Greenhaven Press 1986. 2. Life in the
Balance: Exploring the Abortion
Controversy, Robert N. Wennberg, Wm. B.
Eerdmans Publishing Co. 1985. 3.
www.topicsearch.com : Abortion controversy
4. Abortion: Risk Vs. Benefit, Aaron
Saarni, Oxford University Press
1990. 5. The Crime of Abortion, Erick
Richardson, Prentice-Hall Inc.
1989. 6. Compton’s Encyclopedia (CD Rom) 7.
www.naral.org Naral homepage 8.
potterschool.com/abortion Abortion Perspectives.