On Abortion
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.
Very interesting statements here, Bob. Let’s try to look at some of the more interesting ones.
1. Bob said, “I believe they [the man and woman conceiving the child] are entering into a contract with themselves, the unborn child, and society.”
How does society come into this contract? Does society guarantee anything for the child? If anything were to happen to the parents, will society take care of the child just like the parents would have?
2. Bob says, “My argument is based solely on the ethical view that destroying a life should require significant justification, and should never be a unilateral decision.”
How does this square with your views on US invasion of Iraq which led to the deaths of thousands of civilians who were “unilaterally” killed? Or the hundreds of civilians killed by Israel’s recent humiliation in Lebanon? Or do you believe that Iraqis and Lebanese are not worthy of your time?
3. Bob says, “Should a change in life circumstances be considered?”
One of the responsibilities of any parent who gives birth to a child is to try their best to provide a high quality of life for their child. Any circumstance that affects this ability, if discovered in the first trimester or so of pregnancy, is reasonable grounds for considering abortion. A pending divorce does seem a reasonable justification for abortion.
An unwanted child has a very good likelihood of becoming an undesirable member of society. If the parents cannot guarantee that the child is brought up reasonably well, then it is better for the child to have been aborted.
But overall, this was a reasonably balanced account that I can respect while disagreeing with some points.
Comment by human i tarian — October 5, 2006 @ 7:07 pm
Bob, I understand what your saying. I think abortion is a crime against humanity. I cant believe the figures I’ve found. Motherly instinct seems to be forgotten. Mothers are, I thought, supposed to be fiercely protective of their offspring. Not any more. Some have even said that abortion was their prefered choice over birth control due to, they say less side effects and comparable cost.I am fast losing faith in human nature.
I would like to leave some figures and thoughts with you for any passing Pro-choicers to concider…….
World estimations of the number of terminations carried out each year is somewhere between 20 and 88 million.
3,500 per day / 1.3 million per year in America alone.
50% of that 1.3 million claimed failed birth control was to blame.
A further 48% had failed to use any birth control at all.
And 2% had medical reasons.
That means a stagering 98% may have been avoided had an effective birth control been used.
I am a pro-lifer who has no religious convictions at all . I didn’t need the fear of god or anything else to come to my decision, just a good sense of what is right and wrong.
You see we were all once a fetus. Is it beyond the realm of possibilities that when your mother first learned she was carrying you, she may have considered her options? What if she had decided to terminate? Would that have been OK?
You would not exist, if you have children they would not exist, and your (husband or wife) would be married to someone else. You would have been deprived of all your experiences and memories. In this day and age with terminations being so readily available and so many being carried out, if you make it to full term
you can consider yourself lucky. Lucky you had a mother that made the choice of life for you. Don’t you think they all deserve the same basic human right, LIFE?
I’m all for contraception, prevention is certainly better than termination.
Did you know you can get an implant that is safe, 99.9% effective, and lasts for three years? Just think girls not even a show for three years, wouldn’t that be great? I think too many people rely too heavily on the last option (abortion), I think if abortions weren’t so readily available people would manage their reproductive system far better resulting in a fraction of the number of unwanted pregnancies.
World wide there are over 50 MILLION aborted pregnancies each year. In America 3,500 terminations carried out every day, that’s over 1.3 million every year, 50% of all cases claimed that birth control had been used, 48% admitted they took no precaution, and 2% had a medical reason. That’s a staggering 98% that may have been prevented had an effective birth control been used. Don’t get me wrong, I suspect the percentages in Australia would be much the same.
Just a lot of unnecessary killing.
At the point of conception is when life began for you. This was the start of your existence. Your own personal big bang. Three weeks after conception heart started to beat. First brain waves recorded at six weeks after conception. Seen sucking thumb at seven weeks after conception.
I am convinced that in the not too distant future, people will look back at many of the practices of today with disbelief and horror.
Want to know how to find humanity-?
True humanity can only be achieved, by concidering others/ caring about others, as much as, if not more than yourself.
Until we do we are no more than an uncivilisation, with all the uncivilised things that we do…
Comment by ausblog — October 9, 2006 @ 3:20 am
Have you seen ( HOT OFF THE SHOW! Throw-away babies )
a blog by Sharon Hughes?
Comment by ausblog — October 18, 2006 @ 12:51 am