|
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). A first pregnancy
permanently changes the structure of a woman's breasts. Before she is
pregnant, her breasts cannot produce milk, as the gland cells are
immature and underdeveloped. When she becomes pregnant, estrogen and
other hormones flood her system. This results in rapid growth in size,
while the internal structure undergoes dramatic change.
Cells, previously dormant, rapidly grow into a system of branching
ducts and gland cells capable of producing milk. Once this growth,
change and maturing is complete, there is no further significant change
the rest of her life. Once mature, the chance of the breast developing
cancer is much less. When these cells are changing and transitional,
they are less stable and have much greater potential of becoming
cancerous. If she completes her first pregnancy, this unstable period
passes and her gland cells mature and stabilize. But --- if she
interrupts her pregnancy, in its early phase, and 90% of abortions are
done in the first trimester, she in effect stops the development of the
cells at this unstable, transitional phase. It seems apparent that
cancerous changes can and do occur more frequently among these
transitional cells of a woman who has terminated her pregnancy. If she
aborts more than once before completing a pregnancy, her chance for
cancer increases even more. A subsequent full term pregnancy helps, but
sadly never removes the sharply increased threat of cancer.
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?
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 therefore should be
outlawed.
|
|
|
(0 vote)