abortion: a legalized murder

Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2004 02:08:55

abortion is an issue that has been debated over and over again since the supreme court ruling on roe vs wade, but up until now, there has not been any agreement on either sides regarding the issue of morality in abortion. the supreme court ruling in roe vs wade in 1973 declares that abortion is permitted for a woman, given that the pregnancy has not gone past the first 2 trimesters. since such decision is made a law, people have been debating on the issues of morality implied in abortion.

the proponent of abortion calls themselves the "pro-choice" people. they hold a firm belief that all women have the right to do whatever they want with their own body. that is obviously inarguable, since they are free people, but what becomes the question is: what about the child? or to be more precise, what about the fetus? should it be given the rights of a human, which case makes abortion a murder, or not?

the opponent of abortion, calls themselves the "pro-life" people. they refuse to be simply called the "anti-abortion" people because they claim that they are more than just in opposition to abortion; pro-life people "oppose any cultural expediency that view death as a solution." of course this self-appointed title causes disagreement from the pro-choice people; they think the "pro-life" title notoriously implies that the pro-choice people are simply the exact opposite, that they are "pro-death." charles colson counters this disagreement by saying, "well, if you favor a procedure that makes a heart stop beating and brain activity cease, wouldn't an objective observer call that promoting death?" (2)

pro-choice people often claim that fetus is not living being, and hence abortion is not an act of murder. although there might be some truth in this claim, this kind of argument has been left out by modern pro-choicers. in an attempt to make their claim that abortion is not murder even stronger, they dare to agree with the pro-lifers that a fetus IS a living being. the fact that a fetus "is a biological mechanism that converts nutrients and oxygen into energy that causes its cells to divide, multiply, and grow," leads these pro-choicers to accept the fact that a fetus IS alive. however, what they disagree with the pro-lifers, is whether the fetus has the same right as a human being or not. brian elroy mckinley claims that although a fetus is alive and human ---that it has DNA and all sorts of genes that will allow it to develop into a human being--- it is not yet a PERSON who, by definition, possesses consciousness. moreover, the fact that a fetus is NOT physically independent strengthen the argument that a fetus is not a person and thus abortion is not an act of murder. mckinley considers that "abortion is an absolutely moral choice for any woman wishing to control her body."(5)

from a medical point of view, it is claimed that terminating a pregnancy proves to be less of a risk for the woman herself, regardless of medical conditions or age. moreover, women who possess medical conditions such as diabetes with retinopathy, cardiac or renal complications, advanced cardiac disease, renal failure, sickle cell disease, autoimmune disease, and psychiatric disease, will be at much significant risk if they decide to carry on with their pregnancy. (8)

pro-life people have been using the bible as moral guidance to issues like abortions, but since the bible is not accepted universally as a moral guidance, i will skip any pro-life arguments that use the bible as a basis of argument. in an article in leadershipU, sue bohlin, who is a pro-lifer, claims the bible itself does not give an insight on the issue of abortion that is anything more than the "thou shalt not murder" commandment. how then, did these people come about relating such commandment to the fetus? bohlin claims that the reason to that might go all the way back to the tradition of jews. the jews word for young children, is exactly the same with the word they use for the unborn, yeled. the jews did not make any distinction between young children and the fetus, thus claiming that even killing the fetus is an act of murder. though pro-life, bohlin also avoids using the bible as the only reason to support her argument. for bohlin, the reason people want the convinience of easy access to abortion is more than just what meets the eye; she claims that the main reason is because people "want sexual freedom without consequences." abortion is a way to eliminate such consequences. according to bohlin, however, having an abortion but NOT admitting it as a wrong act is a false move. bohlin argues that if a woman does not grieve for the loss, or tries to restrain the grief, the emotional pain will not go anywhere. holding back such emotional pain will eventually turn them into "self-destruct mode" because of the severe depression they have to undergo. (1)

this view is also backed up by ian gentles, who in an article for the humanlife review claims that females do experience "negative emotional consequences" of abortion, such as depression and guilt. he brought up the survey result that says many women decide to go with abortion because they are being pressured by men. when a woman takes the decision to have an abortion due to pressure from her partner, she has a greater likelihood to be suffering from these "negative emotional consequences." gentles claims that "abortion often suits men’s convenience much better than it does women’s." (4)

the pro-life people usually consider abortion as a somewhat darwinian act of survival of the fittest. 34 states in the united states have a fetal homicidal law. this law basically says that any crime against a mother that also injures or kills her unborn will be treated as a crime with two victims, EXCEPT IN THE CASE OF ABORTION. john s. piper, in an article he wrote for onDOCTRINE, claims that such a law is ridiculous. it is ridiculous in a way that the state gives the right of a human being to the fetus that the mother is carrying in the case of a crime, but deliberately takes away such right when the mother wishes for an abortion. so in other words, the will of the mother determines the life of the potential child. to put it in piper's word: "the awesome thing is that we endow her will not just with sovereignty over her unborn baby, but with the authority to define it: if she wants it, it is a baby, a person. if she does not want it, it is not a baby, not a person." piper also claims that this promotes the idea that "the will of the strong creates (or nullifies) the personhood of the weak," and in this particular case, it nullifies. (7)

mark earley, in his article also in onDOCTRINE, brought up the biological pro-choice argument made by alexander sanger, who is a pro-choice activist. in sanger's book beyond choice: reproductive freedom in the 21st century, sanger makes the claim that the reason for reproduction is to make sure that "our genes are passed along" to the offspring. if this is the case, then if the mother feels that she is unable to take care of her child, or if the child is going to be handicapped or unhealthy, then it is better for her to undergo abortion, because this ensures that her genes will be passed on in a more favorable circumstances. sanger claims that "the only thing more important than life is the propagation of life." in other words, for sanger, a life is replaceable. earley considers this as an unacceptable argument; he rebuttles it by claiming that "each human life is unique, that no one is replaceable." (3)

in defense of the pro-lifers, sue bohlin claims that early indication that the child is going to be forever handicapped or is carrying some major disease that will impair the child forever is also not a reason to allow abortion. bohlin provides an example about the sawyers family, whose third child is diagnosed with down's syndrome, even after repeated testing. doctors and fellow friends have suggested them to undergo an abortion, since the diagnosis implies that their third child will forever be handicapped. the sawyers family, however, decides to proceed with the delivery. much to their surprise, the third child ends up being "the healthiest, most robust, smartest little kid" one has ever seen. of course such case does not occur most of the time, but bohlin main point is that even medical diagnosis can sometimes not be trusted. to put it in her words: "how many other healthy babies are being aborted after the parents get misleading or just plain wrong test results?" (1)

an article in the atlantic online talks about the prosecution of dr. kenneth edelin in the killing of a child. edelin was performing a legal abortion on a seventeen-year old female, but the court found that although the abortion was legal, the act of killing of the fetus itself was not. district attorney newman flanagan argues that what edelin did was categorized as manslaughter, because according to an eyewitness, the fetus "struggled for air and died" after being taken out by edelin from the womb. the examination of a medical examiner and a pathologist determines that, on the basis of the lungs structure, it was possible that the fetus drew breath outside the womb. edelin, suspected to be a pro-choicer, claimed that he did not have any intention of delivering a live baby in the first place since he declared that doing so would be "contrary to the wishes of the mother." (6)

arguments regarding the issue of abortion from both pro-choice and pro-life people are all sound arguments. but one fact that both sides cannot deny is that a fetus is alive, and thus, taking the life of a living being can be considered a murder. however, there are still issues regarding whether the fetus has human rights or not, and such issues remain to be studied before anyone can create a universalized law of morality that can be used as a guidance in such issues.

(1) bohlin, sue -- ABORTION
(2) colson, charles --- ANTICS WITH SEMANTICS WHY 'PRO-LIFE' MEANS PRO-LIFE
(3) earley, mark --- IRREPLACEABLE - WHY THE 'BIOLOGICAL' ARGUMENT FOR ABORTION DOESN'T WORK
(4) gentles, ian -- WOMEN'S HEALTH AFTER ABORTION: A FRESH LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE
(5) mcKinley, brian elroy -- WHY ABORTION IS MORAL
(6) mydans, seth -- WHEN IS AN ABORTION NOT AN ABORTION?
(7) piper, john s. -- ABORTION AND THE TREE OF THE KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL
(8) trupin, suzanne r., MD -- ABORTION