Should unborn children be protected? Or should parents have the right to abort them?
Aborting a pregnancy is a choice. However, that choice is usually subsequent to, and therefore ought to be subject to, the choice to conceive that pregnancy in the first place. We know what causes pregnancy nowadays. We know what men and women have to do to make babies, and we know what they have to do to prevent babies from being made. Indeed, the options for preventing pregnancy are legion. Most of those options are highly convenient, and very low cost. Some are even free, and take absolutely no time out of a busy schedule. Therefore when a couple does not take reasonable action to prevent conception, I believe they are entering into a contract with themselves, the unborn child, and society.
Clearly there are certain pregnancies for which that first choice was not made. We’ll discuss those a bit further on. For now let’s concentrate on the pregnancies that could have been avoided by the simplest of measures. Should the parents have the right to abort such pregnancies? Should they have the right to cancel the contract they made?
To exercise this right, a life must be destroyed. Destroying a life is not an action to be taken lightly. There must be strong justification for destroying a life that would otherwise become a person. The fact that this life is wholly dependent upon its mother, and will cause significant and irreversible changes to it’s parent’s lives, cannot be a factor. Since they chose not to prevent the creation of that life neither the mother nor the father should have the right to take it back.
I don’t say this out of any religious conviction. My argument is based solely on the ethical view that destroying a life should require significant justification, and should never be a unilateral decision. Since the parents chose not to prevent that life from being created, they should be held responsible to that life.
Should a change in life circumstances be considered? For example, let’s say that a couple decides to have a child, and then subsequently decides to get a divorce. Should they then have the right to abort the child? No. Since they made the choice to have the child, they must live with that choice. Their divorce is not a factor, just as it would not be a factor in any other kind of responsibility. Mortgage companies are not going to forgive the debts of parties simply because they get divorced. “I didn’t know this would happen.” is not a reason to dissolve a responsibility.
Is an embryo really worthy of such consideration? Should a single cell be protected under our constitution? Yes, so long as that cell was conceived by people who have the option to act responsibly. In my view the fact that the parents allowed the conception to take place means that the parents entered into a contract with that single cell, and with society, to nurture that single cell into a person. I am not arguing that the single cell has any innate rights simply because it exists. I am arguing that the parents gave it the right to exist by allowing it to be conceived. I am arguing that once the parents allowed the life to be conceived, they are responsible to that life, and to society, to nurture that life.
When does an unborn child gain the right to life? There must be a moment when the child inherits these rights? I can see no better moment to award these rights than the moment when the parents decided to allow the conception. In this sense the child had the rights even before it was conceived, because the rights were granted by an act of the parent’s will. This makes sense, because all rights are granted by an act of someone else’s will. Who better to grant those rights to a child, but the child’s parents? What better time than when the parent’s decided to allow the child to be conceived?
There are some changes in life-circumstance that can vacate the conception contract. For example, if the pregnancy becomes a significant threat to the life of the mother. (Not the life-style of the mother!). For example, if maintaining the pregnancy poses a significant risk that the mother could die or be disabled, then the contract with the embryo is not in effect, and I find no ethical dilemma in aborting the pregnancy. I know this depends upon the meaning of “significant” but I’m not writing a law here, just posing an ethical opinion.
What if a couple finds that they are pregnant even though they have taken all reasonable precautions to prevent pregnancy? For example, what if a woman conceives while on the pill, or while using an IUD? In that case the contract with the embryo is null, and I find no ethical dilemma in abortion. (Rhythm, Pepsi douches, and Mistletoe tea don’t count.) What if the mother claims that a condom was used? I’d want the father to so stipulate. What if the mother claims that a condom was used but doesn’t know who the father is? Then I would deny the abortion. The mother must produce the father and get his testimony.
What if the mother wants the abortion but the father does not? I think the abortion must be denied. Conception is a contract to which both parents are parties, along with the child and society. Both parents should be in agreement before any child can be aborted. This may seem unfair to the dissenting party, but remember that both agreed not to prevent the conception.
There are cases where the choice to prevent pregnancy could not have been made. These include rape, sexual abuse, and adolescence. A victim of rape or abuse has not entered into a contract with her unborn child, society, or the father. In cases where rape or abuse can be confirmed, I find no ethical dilemma with abortion. I include statutory rape in this. Girls or boys who are underage cannot be parties to the contract of conception and so abortion is not a dilemma. Incompetence is also a factor. Severely retarded individuals cannot enter into this contract and so abortion is an acceptable outcome.
When a couple willfully allows a child to be conceived, they have entered into a contract with each other, with the child, and with society. That contract cannot be dissolved without the consent of all responsible parties. Since the unborn child cannot represent itself, the other parties must speak for it. Society, for it’s part, cannot agree to dissolve the contract unless the circumstances are extenuating. Changing circumstances, or irresponsible behavior are not, in themselves, extenuating enough to destroy an unborn child who has the potential to become a true person, but who has had no say in any of the events surrounding its life.
