Abortion: A Woman’s Right To Life
Abortion is often a subject of controversy amongst various religious and political groups. The reason I wish to bring up this issue, is the amount of bad press this simple medical procedure receives, from Religious Rights conservatives (mostly Christians) and certain right wing politicians (E.g the American Republicans).
The definition of abortion, according to the Oxford’s dictionary: • noun 1 the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy. 2 the natural expulsion of a fetus from the womb before it is able to survive independently.
Religious zealots have often charged that abortion is equated to murder, on the grounds that fetuses are full-fledged human babies. As such, doctors who carry out this relatively risk-free (Note “relatively”, all medical procedures harbour a certain element of risk, even the simplest ones) medical procedure have often been unfairly branded as murderers, a point-blank accusation that often brings about death threats against these medical professionals.
These religious zealots, claiming to be “pro-lifers”, demand that abortion be banned, since the very act of legalizing abortion is tantamount to legalizing murder. The absurdity of such demands aside, no nation can afford to ban abortion on the basis of such ridiculous, religious doctrines.
To begin tearing down the nonsense surrounding the purported evils of abortion, perhaps the very heart of the argument stems from the definition of “Fetus”. Once again, I will refer to the Oxford’s dictionary (Yes folks, Oxford’s my favorite):
fetus: • noun (pl. fetuses) an unborn or unhatched offspring of a mammal, in particular an unborn human more than eight weeks after conception.
What that indirectly indicates is, that a fertilized embryo less than 8 weeks old cannot even be deemed as a fetus, let alone an unborn baby! Note the words “unhatched offspring”. In the words of Oxford, a fetus clearly is not a full-fledged baby.
Of course, religious fundies wouldn’t count on the Oxford’s dictionary to destroy their “prolife” delusions. They will turn to their religious scriptures for inspiration, and claim that their God, or Gods, have exclusive rights to life. Such a bogus claim on divine intervention with regards to a purely social issue cuts no ice, however. As logic goes, if a divine Creator has absolutely no love for abortion, why then must he/she allow unwilling mothers to get pregnant, or allow defective fetuses to be borne by women? Is God trying to play the role of a sadistic Creator?
Right wing fundies will not be convinced, though. They will claim that under absolutely no circumstances should a fetus be aborted. To that, all I can do is lament, that the world is not quite a perfect place. Below are some scenarios whereby abortion should come into the equation as an option (Note: I do not support forced abortions, no matter how dire the situation is).
Scenario One: A 9-yr old girl is raped by a close relative. The animal is caught, and he is rightly sentenced to jail. Unfortunately, the girl gets pregnant. Her mother, being a devout Catholic, is dead set against aborting the fetus. The young girl’s doctor, however, sings a different tune. The young mother in question is a victim of rape, and being a child herself, to force her to go through the pregnancy will not only damage her health, the prospect of increasing her nightmares she will have to go through during the cause of the rape in the shape of carrying the offspring of the offender is simply no better than the rapist who rapes her.
Scenario two: A mother has conceived, but the pregnancy is not a welcome one. The father has just lost his job due to a recent company restructuring program, and with three kids and a wife in tow, the father simply cannot afford to have one more. If abortion is not an option, the child will be placed on adoption by its parents, who simply cannot afford to raise another child at the expense of the other kids, some of whom have already been forced to quit school due to their impoverished situation.
Scenario Three: Joy has turned to anguish for a young couple. Having tried unsuccessfully for years, Mdm X has finally conceived a child, only for the doctor to diagnose a anomaly in the fetus’s brain. Should Mdm X go ahead with the pregnancy and give birth, the baby is unlikely to survive for more than a few months, at most up to a year. During this period, the baby will be hooked up to a survival machine via many tubes, and life will invariably be worst than death. The doctor assures Mdm X that there is virtually no chance for the fetus to lead a healthy, normal life.
Should abortion not be administered in the above examples? No, the religious fundies will have you know. Some will even claim that suffering is “beautiful” (Think Mother Teresa). While they emphasize on the fetus’s right to life, they ignore the following points:
1. The mother’s right to choose what she wants for her offspring.
2. The offspring’s right to a normal life, failing which, a painless, merciful destruction via abortion.
3. That the right to choose is not exclusive to deities.
4. These religous zealots are enamoured with the rights of fetuses, but are utterly impervious to the rights of full-fledged adults, by supporting the death sentence, the Iraqi war, the bombing of abortion clinics, etc.
5. Should abortion be banned, women who require the procedure may be compelled to seek the services of unlicensed doctors. Such doctors, being unrecognised and most likely untrained in their professions, will put the lives of women at risk. More women will die as a result, making the term “pro-life” sound ludicrous indeed. Exchanging the lifes of embryos and fetuses for the lives of mothers doesn’t sound exactly “pro-life” , does it?
It is imperative that atheists, freethinkers, and liberals put up a stand against such ignorant diatribes and attempts to perpetrate such nonsense. Failing which, innocent lives will be lost at the expense of mainstream religious doctrines. A hefty price to pay, for the indoctrination of conservative, useless moral values.
Popularity: 10% [?]
February 16th, 2006 at 12:08 am
Nice one. I intended to post about abortion too but you beat me to it. I will post it after a while.
-cheers! Tony
February 16th, 2006 at 4:26 am
Let’s not also forget that half of the fetus’ genes comes from the father. That being the case, the father should have a say on whether a fetus should be aborted or not. It’s not just the mother who has a stake in the pregnancy. My view is that abortion is justifiable under these conditions: 1) the mother’s life is put at risk by the pregnancy; 2) the fetus has a known medical defect that will prevent it from leading a relatively normal life, given the state of medical science obtaining at the time; 3) the father and mother have both consented to the abortion. Condition 1 - by itself - is sufficient to justify an abortion. If the mother develops severe eclampsia at a pre-viable stage of pregnancy, for example, and the only way to prevent her death is to terminate the pregnancy, then it should be terminated - even if the father objects to it. This is already accepted practice. It’s not controversial. Condtion 2 is trickier, ‘coz it requires the experts’ correct diagnosiis of the fetus’ disease and their estimation of the present and future ability of medical science to remedy the problem. But what if the experts are wrong? A fetal illness that is deemed incurable today may yet become curable 5 years from now. Condition 3 is trickier still. This is the situation where the mother’s life is not threatened by the pregnancy, the fetus is perfectly healthy, and yet both parents decide they want to get rid of their offspring, just for the heck of it. Personally, I would have nothing to lose if they carried this out, since I am not directly related to the fetus. The parents are the ones who will lose their chance to propagate their genes. The abortion will be their loss, not mine. So I would not necessarily object to an abortion of their genes. But society may frown on this as being cruel to the fetus (who may yet turn out to be a perfectly healthy, bubbly little human child). The solution, I think, is for the woman to complete the pregnancy, and then put the baby up for adoption. This is a more humane approach to the problem.
February 17th, 2006 at 12:38 pm
If they are so afraid of taking one’s life, then they should not be eating anything at all!
Life doesn’t count only to humans - a plant has a “life” and obviously, animals (e.g. pig, chicken, fish) do as well.
Hypocrites.
February 17th, 2006 at 2:08 pm
I can understand why some people are so against abortion.
On a personal level, I abhor abortion, based on the grounds that abortion does hold certain medical risks for the woman involved, and that it really is against human instincts to abort one’s offspring.
Having said that, I realize that abortion is one of those necessary evils, such as prisons and jails, which, although not very appealing to our senses, are part and parcel of a healthy society.
Banning abortion is not a worthy strategy because it leads to mothers seeking a medical procedure from unlicensed doctors who are outside the scope of legal, professional legislation.
February 20th, 2006 at 2:47 pm
The church should take it upon themselves to care for these unwanted babies. Since after a fair assessment of the sordid situation the unfortunate parents will be up against is duly recognized, the fundies are the ones who’d want to push thru with it anyway.
That’s the problem i find with churches, most especially of the dominating Roman variety. They’re only concerned when babies are born, but totally disregard their welfares as they grow older - leaving the responsibility to parents who, majority of whom were not educated in proper child rearing in the first place. After all it’s written in their book: “…religion pure and undefiled with the God and Father is this, to look after orphans and widows in their tribulation — unspotted to keep himself from the world.” Let’s see how the church put this into practice - genuinely that is.
Another thing worth considering with regards to the issue is perhaps the care for the earth’s ecosystem. People should be aware of the repercussions of the “realities” of the human species becoming a quasi-viral “cause for alarm” for the planet.
But of course the fundies are only second rating our lives here in the ‘now’, placing too much emphasis on the next life everlasting! Nice tries anyway.