TIME TO TALK.

What Is The Case For Abortion?

“The sanctity of life, the inviolability of innocent human life, and the fear of social implications of a liberal abortion policy for other defenseless people such as the handicapped and the elderly” as a backing for the religious and philosophical arguments - a very underwhelming rationalization (Shannon CH 5). It nevertheless, gives us a glimpse into the underlying problems of this issue – The importance and valuation of life. Some say it is too priceless to be given away, under no circumstance should it be appropriate, often claiming that “[Abortion] involves the most natural process in the world, pregnancy.” I ask, even in rape when the child is a constant reminder of heartache? Anyone is free to state otherwise. There are others who would be displeased with the very idea of taking a life, but understand that not all life is equal and address that problem. Although, there are those in liberal and moderate circles who undertake this task for selfish means (who are by no means commendable), the broad scheme of work suggests they have a better motive through reason.

The basic problems (including topics related to euthanasia) arise with the differences in the ‘valuation’ of life along with the basic and simple, assumption that life and death are antithetical legal concepts—to say that someone who is alive cannot be dead. It stems from views and beliefs various sides hold in their decisions, which could be settled by offering a choice (since there is no perfectly established and accepted point of the difference between life and death). Firstly, the pro-life and vastly conservative side suggests that it is an abomination to take a life, any life. Most owe this method thought to their religious and sometimes personal motives. To address the religious aspect, they reference the equality of all human beings and mankind as a united family. Bearing this in mind (that the fundamental problem involves a valuation of life and that we are homogenous with God), we should be given the same rights as God created us all from him, all equal to one. In this case, why do not sinners go to hell? Does God have a difference in the valuation of life and souls as well? For those who declare that God told them abortion is wrong, I ignore that. To the advocates who stem from personal motives, I argue that there is nothing else to be done to sustain that opinion. A simple question suffices: Would you choose to keep an unborn child knowing full well he or she is prone to torment and hardship if born? What would your personal motives be inclined to do? On the other hand, the pro-choice’s respect the ability and willingness of each individual within the society to make a decision based on his or her own likeness to promote happiness within a society, stems for reason of an improving beneficial world-plan (a view similar to John Adam’s – a man of intelligence, reason and principle’s stand to represent British soldiers believing that all men should have rights to CHOOSE whatever helps their circumstance in an orderly manner and not be subject to one overruling, unjust law – he went on to winning the case for the soldiers and preventing untimely, unreasonable deaths). If you take away choice, what then do we have? The person of personal moral or Godly conviction (who now understands God places varying importance on our souls and value) could not help our world and thus, would be detrimental and harmful to everyone and himself. Their explanations are normally adopted as a means of reinforcing their prejudice rather than explaining why they chose that position in the first instance.

Next, we shall observe that the moderate view holds aborting a fetus to be a painful and a tragic event but one that needs to be done through the evaluation and deliberation of its costs and effects and the acknowledgment of the moral acceptability of some abortions, basically speaking. That is to say, when the mother’s health is in jeopardy for instance, it is a clear-cut decision to save her by removing or terminating the pregnancy. Similarly, the liberal approach to this is a more accommodating attitude towards the “so-called soft reasons for abortion”. They are powerful advocates of the rights of an individual (the mother) and the ensuing state of her life when the action is permitted. Unlike the conservative stance, this doctrine is not a self-refuting idea. Worldwide, about 20 million abortions are performed unsafely. For those screaming to be “life-savers” therein lays a big contradiction here – as it is easily preventable.

Now, we shall take a look at a dilemma that will arise if we adopt a conservative stance. In this situation, people are able to birth and procreate freely. There is no case for the thought of terminating a pregnancy to even arise; STI’s, deadly disfigurements and impregnation as a result of rape or incest are erased from the world.  It seems such a world would have no need for pro-choicer’s to even exist. Such a world could also not exist. Alternatively, there is a world, real as could be, where diseases are rampant, children are raped and mother’s still drink with pregnancy. They are not allowed to perform their duties and choose what point or option that will bring them happiness. We will soon see that the offspring of these people will be the definition of suffering. But, it should not matter; their God shall help them all. Men willingly believe what they wish. Thomas Jefferson said, "Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." The difference between fiction and reality is that fiction has to make sense. The conservative, fictional world does not. According to these named scenarios, what would be the most realistic choice? Also, which is the more realistic world?

A woman with child realizes in the days after her first trimester that she could not support the lives of both her and the offspring if it is to be born (financial, personal choice or even health related issues); what then should be done? Government funding? Healthcare miracles? The issue is not “being alive”; we seem to have the faintest idea of that notion. We also have to consider and weigh the costs and effects after the child has been born. Any efforts made to determine the “livelihood” of an unborn child makes it unacceptable to terminate the pregnancy - regarding (the child) as being alive makes it considerably more difficult to make the decision to abort and as such, the pro-life option would be the law of the land. There are now techniques used to check for anomalies in babies that could be used to prevent suffering, AND save lives when none are found thus, the baby SHOULD be birthed. Conservatives, take note.

A universalizing of abortion illegalization would contravene that happiness item, an alternative that does not fit in with the pro-choice promoters of this issue. Equally, the moderate and liberal approach, which inspects and takes account of the choice and individual has – be it pro-life or pro choice in the matter – has the ability and is willing to choose aborting or carrying the child to term. It is more sustainable in our world, clearly. And an idea that I believe would appeal to Kant, a man of reason, very much. Kant constructs a framework that is able to stand above the many varying perspective and give rise to the greatest outcome possible in a society (he does this by placing reason squarely above bias, and disposition to reach a median that can and does work for the society). He places [good] will (good in this case due to its adhesion to reason) in acting according to the conception of law, that is, by working along with the principles. Next, since the good will produces the action, which is directed by law that is rooted in reason, then, we can safely say that the action or decision to take an active pro-choice stance is the physical manifestation of reason. Kant calls it practical reason. This reason is purged of all human inclinations and as such, is regarded as being good. In the words of Kant, “That is practically good, however, which determines the will by means of the conceptions of reason, and consequently not from subjective causes, but objectively, that is, on principles which are valid for every rational being as such.” (Ethical Theory155). He would suggest a more moderate approach that lends an ear to various conditions and settings through which a decision can be made for the pro-life position. He would be more accommodating with the choice of a universalized, institutionalized abortion law as discussed earlier.

The utilitarian would expect us to follow that which makes the greatest number happy, and thus through reason, the best outcome arises which factors in the health and well-being of the largest number of individuals than the sadness of all. Mill proceeded to installing a principle of the valuation of pleasures. He states that some pleasures are more highly esteemed to the people, society and nation than others. He goes on to mention that man would rather pursue intellectual pleasures, that is, pleasures of the mind like competence and wisdom (which inadvertedly leads to a more conceptually stable happiness) than pleasures of the body or physical pleasures which sort of serves as a counter-argument to the criticism that the Epicurean received. He goes on to elaborate on the discernment of a higher valued pleasures explaining that the judgment and analysis of pleasure values should be left to individuals or agents who have experienced the pleasures in question. In this case, what side should favor? Are we to favor a side, which gives us the ability to choose, where each is able to commit to whatever personal proclivities they identify with or one which gives an overruling doctrine that cannot be sustained? In another scenario, a child is to be born with a defect. In a pro-life world, he is left to suffer and the family is meant to cope with the problem (seeing that one cannot simply “get rid” of the child or is this allowed?). In a pro-choice world, the family addresses the problem by terminating the pregnancy and avoiding the issue altogether.

Furthermore, as mentioned earlier, the concept surrounding this issue spills over into the topic of euthanasia and it’s ethical arguments. If we were to make euthanasia illegal and outright banned, wouldn’t it be more accommodating to legalize it and as such give individuals the right to CHOOSE whether or not they would want the treatment? Those against it can decline from participating and vice-versa (it should be noted that the choice is made in reference to what makes one happy at the point of the decision and as such should be the only way of knowing whether or not he or she is agrees with the treatment for reasons including a vegetative state where it’s impossible to decide). In other words, would you like a choice that gives the potential option of happiness to all, or one that does not?

Olujimi Oyenekan.