First, I think that it is necessary to make the discussion honest. Here is the medical definition of abortion: “the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus: a : spontaneous expulsion of a human fetus during the first 12 weeks of gestation — compare miscarriage. b : induced expulsion of a human fetus.
One will note that this definition does not include the words “reproductive rights” or "women's rights" or “choice.” Abortion itself is simply ending a pregnancy – killing a living entity growing in a woman’s uterus, regardless of how you may define that life that is terminated.
Reproductive rights would be rights that address reproduction. That reproduction, while it may occur over a period of time, begins when the egg is fertilized and the reproduction begins. So those rights would seemingly be involved with the act of creation, not of termination.
This leads me to the word “choice” and the phrase "woman's right to choose." Excluding acts of forced creation such as rape or similar criminal occurrences, a woman has the opportunity to choose whether to engage in a sexual act long before she faces the decision about abortion and a child growing in her womb. To assume that women are incapable of understanding the possible consequences of intercourse or the possible failures of birth control, is to assume that their intelligence is fairly low. Are we to assume that women are incapable of knowing what they are doing, that they are likely to be so overcome with passion or sexual drive that they do not understand the consequences of their act? Really?
Yes, a woman has a right to choose what to do with her body, but that right does not only exist after she has become pregnant. When a woman freely enters into intercourse, she has made a choice that includes the possible consequence of becoming pregnant. If she does not want to be pregnant, does not want to carry another life inside her, then she needs to make a different choice when faced with a situation that could result in pregnancy.
Once a woman has made the choice that results in the union of a sperm and egg to begin the reproductive process, she now holds a separate life within her. Yes, it is her body within which that being will grow, but she has made a choice to place that being there. And, now, in my opinion, it is not only her life that matters.
There is a selfishness in the idea that the child within the woman’s womb is meaningless; that it is only the woman who matters. This, to me, is a part of our more generally selfish culture: if it is inconvenient, just get rid of it. It is also a childish response to one’s own activity and an inability to take responsibility for the consequences of one’s actions. And, the encouragement of this response, the failure to hold women accountable for their actions and to instead give them an out, like the failure to recognize their ability to make a choice about having intercourse, is simply degrading to women. Real respect for women would not treat them like children. It would acknowledge their ability to be responsible for their own actions.
Beyond the disingenuousness of abortion being an expression of women’s rights, those who engage in the abortion discussion often fail to even consider the broader effect that abortion has on our attitude towards born children, the family, and on humanity and life itself.
If we can abort lives that are simply inconvenient or not to our liking (e.g. the movement to abort Downs babies), then we are turning children into a commodity. It becomes about the life of the adults, and not of the children – we will select a child when it is convenient for us, in the way that one selects a dog or even a piece of furniture. It becomes about enhancing our own lives and not nurturing the lives of the children. Thinking in the long term, this cannot be healthy for future generations of children or for the future of humanity.
Speaking of humanity, when life becomes a commodity it tends to lose its special value. If it is OK to kill an unborn child, then why not one being born? If it is OK to have live birth abortions, then why not well into an infant’s life if that life is just too troublesome? If we lose our respect for human life, then it becomes much easier to kill in the same way that soldiers are often indoctrinated with the idea that their enemy is somehow less than human. Easy abortion, abortion on demand, has a way of cheapening life, making it valueless and hence one can more easily take or destroy any human life without remorse. Is this really the direction we would like to see for the human race?
I believe that the above points suggest a strong argument against abortion generally. There will, of course be difficult individual cases such as rape, incest, or simply those rare situations in which an abortion would seem to be the best choice for all concerned, including the child to be aborted. How to handle these types of situations invokes the beliefs and religious values of those concerned. But, because these difficult situations will always exist does not mean that abortion should be an accepted alternative in every pregnancy.
Abortion follows the act of reproduction. It is not reproduction. It is a termination of a reproduction that has already occurred. It kills a living being, regardless of what one chooses to call that being. To assume that women have no voice or choice until they find themselves pregnant is incredibly demeaning of women. To readily accept abortion for reasons of personal convenience turns children into little more than commodities and makes life itself if not valueless, at least less meaningful. The long term consequences on our civilization seem far worse to me than allowing an unwanted pregnancy to come to term.
No comments:
Post a Comment