|
Abortion Few topics polarize society like abortion.
Indeed, one would expect all reasonable people to feel murder is wrong;
likewise, most reasonable people cherish personal freedom. This
topic seems to put those to concepts at odds with each other.
Additionally, it seems everyone has a firm stance on the issue. I
don't know anyone that anyone has ever changed their opinion regarding
abortion. Carl Sagan wrote a great essay about this very topic, but it is quite long. If you are interested click HERE. The Arguments Basically it boils down to the differing opinions of "pro-life" and "pro-choice." The pro-life proponents argue that life begins at conception, and therefore all abortions are murder. Pro-choice advocates generally argue that the life is not "official" until birth and until that time, the government has no business telling women what they can and cannot do with their own bodies. Each side feels they are the most conservative. That is, Pro-life feels that since there is a viable debate on the subject, isn't it best to err on the side of life? Likewise, Pro-choice feels that since the status of a fetus is debatable, isn't it best to err on the side of liberty? So we are back to spinning our wheels getting nowhere. The sole objection to abortion is that it is the taking of human life and should be considered murder. It is necessary to define murder. For this essay I will choose "knowingly ending a human life." Humans breed many animals which are slaughtered for food. We do not regard this as murder. So we cannot merely claim that ending "life" is murder; it must be the taking of a HUMAN life. Indeed, a chimpanzee shares 99.6% of the same DNA as humans. They are the life forms closest to our own on this planet. Killing a chimpanzee is not considered murder. Next we must define human life. It does not simply mean living human tissue. People cut their hair, clip their fingernails, and have all sorts of body parts removed through surgery. It seems logical that simply being a cell with human DNA does not constitute a human life. Nobody regards sperm cells as independent living organisms, likewise unfertilized eggs. It is the point between fertilization and birth that begs the question where does human life begin? Does human life begin at birth? Legally there is some precedence to support this. Babies are not named until they born and issued a birth certificate. However, we know that babies can be extracted from their mother's womb prior to natural birth. The act of passing through the birth canal does not bring about some grand change. Indeed a full-term newborn baby is identical in a practical sense to it's state 1 day before birth. From a scientific point of view, the baby achieved "human life" status at some time prior to the act of birth. Does human life begin at fertilization? It would seem not. Many fertilized eggs fail to develop into fetuses. In fact a high percentage of fertilized eggs are miscarried and the mother never knows. The egg may fail to adhere to the uterus wall, or it will fail to develop for an infinite number of reasons. We do not mourn the loss of these fertilized eggs. We do not invest research to solve the problem of non-developing eggs. So it seems we do not regard a fertilized egg as a independent human life...except when it suits the needs to impose a particular point of view on others that don't share that view. Does independent human life begin at terrestrial viability? That is, does independent life begin when a fetus is sufficiently developed to have a chance at survival outside the womb? Does it begin when the fetus begins to LOOK human? Does it begin when a heart starts to beat? Does it begin when the brain develops sufficiently to allow thought? Each of the milestones happen at a different point during gestation. Each person will select the answer to that question according to their own personal values. It may be interesting to note that over 99% of all abortions are performed during the first trimester. At this time, the fetus cannot survive outside the womb; a thinking brain has not developed; the organism may look more like a tadpole or salamander rather than human; there is no thought; etc. Most of the possible milestones where a fetus can be considered an independent human life have not yet occurred. Indeed the term is not even fetus during that time, rather it is an embryo. Look at a 6-week old embryo under a microscope you will find that it is not a human in appearance or function. It merely has the POTENTIAL to develop into a human life later. Some people have advocated circumstances that could allow an abortion. Notably, they are rape, incest, and a danger to the health of the mother. Conditions, though are subject to whimsical application. For example, if you allow an abortion in the case of rape, what about consented sex under false pretenses? What if a woman gets drunk on New Years Eve, and a man pretends to be her husband, so she consents to sex and becomes pregnant from him? That is very near rape, but she did consent. If you allow an abortion in that case, then what if an unmarried woman has sex with a man that told her he was committed to her only for the sake of having sex with her? That is also consented sex under false pretenses. Conditional agreement invites the "slippery slope" to be applied to judgment. That is, if the line is not clearly drawn it will have inconsistent application. Judge A may rule differently that judge B in the same case. Would you allow abortion in the case of failed contraception? If so, would you allow it for some forms of contraception but not others? Would you judge based on the ability of the parents to raise the child? The slippery slope...it is constantly changing and being interpreted differently by different people. Conclusion Because people of good conscience disagree when human life begins, no particular point of view should be imposed on a woman. If a woman holds the opinion that human life begins at fertilization, she will not choose to have an abortion. Similarly, if a woman holds the opinion that life begins at birth, it is fair to deny her access to a medical procedure based on the OPINIONS of others that have no involvement? A woman must weigh the factors of her life when making this decision. This can mean a great many things, the ability to effectively care for a child, the wishes of the father, even the opinions of family and others in her community. However, the opinions of strangers living in distant communities should not dictate her choices. There is precedence to support this position, the 1973 decision of Roe v. Wade. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled a woman is free to choose an abortion if she wishes. By nature of the 14th Amendment it can be inferred that it is unconstitutional for states to place limits or bans on abortions also. At the risk of offending a great many people I will say that it is un-American to oppose this ruling. You are free to choose to have, or not to have an abortion yourself, as your own personal values dictate. However, you should not expect others to live their lives according to your personal values. Your strongest course of action should be to try to convince the mother, by argument of words, not by force of law. |
| The opinions expressed
here are mine alone. Care to comment? Click
HERE |