MANY PEOPLE INVOLVED IN EVERY
ABORTION Different people give
different reasons for wanting abortions. The man and woman responsible for the
unwanted pregnancy might simply wish to rid themselves of a burden or even feel
that they are patriotically solving a pollution problem. A pregnant teen-ager's
parents might feel compassion for their daughter's distress or fear the shame
which might fall upon their family. The owner and employees of an abortion
referral agency might be interested only in the financial profits from their
business or assume that they are offering a worthy social service. A group of
college students who fund the expenses of a co-ed for an abortion might be
acting out of sympathy for a fellow student or might be protesting what they
consider a restriction by "The Establishment." Some persons who favor
abortions might offer several reasons to justify their desire. A social worker,
for example, might feel distraught at the emotional difficulties encountered by
unwed mothers attempting to raise their children to an adequate quality of life
and might also bewail the rising cost of the local A.D.C. program. Many who involve
themselves in an abortion have conflicting reasons, as a doctor who knows that
his professional competence is aimed at saving life rather than destroying it;
at the same time he is aware of the patient's threat to use harmful
alternatives to a "safe" abortion. In treating a pregnant woman the
doctor has two patients, the mother and her child. For the doctor, then,
abortion has no simple solution, but is a complex problem. IT IS MORE THAN ACADEMIC
TO CONSIDER REASONS for favoring or opposing an abortion, since it is a human
characteristic to have reasons for doing something. And one likes to have a good
reason for one's action. Respect for oneself demands deliberation about any act
which may have irrevocable consequences for oneself and others. Responsibility
for one's action includes accountability for its results, especially when these
can be foreseen. Responsibility demands that one should "look before one
leaps." It has been said that if a
person could foresee all the consequences of any single action before
performing it, one would never do anything harmful to one's best interests as
seen from the long-range view of one's total destiny, whatever that is
considered to be. But human experience indicates that knowledge, however
complete, is not enough to guarantee a person's best interest. A lack of
sufficient will-power can militate against one's best interest when it leads
one to risk a distant advantage for a lesser good available at the moment. An understanding of the
many aspects of the abortion problem could go a long way toward solving the
question of whether or not, and under what circumstances, abortions are helpful
or harmful to those who are involved in them. Assuming good will on the part of
most people, it is probably true that such an understanding would lead to a
wider agreement among citizens and therefore facilitate the formulation of acceptable
civil laws to regulate abortions. There are some, of course, who contend that
abortion does not fall within the jurisdiction of civil law. Perhaps this
current aspect of the problem could be clarified by a better understanding of
law, as well as of abortion. Civil law does not protect
a citizen against hurting his own best interests; it is designed to protect one
from being harmed by others. In the matter of drug abuse, for example, laws are
aimed at preventing the misuse of drugs only insofar as the misuse directly or
indirectly endangers the well-being of others than the user. In practice, this
might be the same as a prohibition against hurting oneself, because any
disability to the user of dangerous drugs may endanger others, as in the case
of a drugged driver on the highway. FOR THOSE WHO SEE THE
FETUS AS A HUMAN BEING, THE FIRST "OTHER PARTY" IS THE FETUS, A
PERSON HAVING THE RIGHT TO LIFE, If the fetus were taken to
be a merely "potential" human being, the continuation of its life
would not seem to be a right inherent in the developing organism, since only
persons can have rights. But does this imply unlimited freedom to destroy the
fetus? WHAT IS TO BE SAID IN FAVOR OF GOD'S RIGHTS? God is the author and
designer of all nature, including the nature of the organism which is claimed
to be in the process of becoming human. That God is always an
interested "other party" to each abortion should not seem strange
when one recalls that the reproduction of any organism is a natural process
whose purpose must be traced back to nature's Author. Authorship gives the
author certain rights, called authority, with respect to that which has been
authored. In a very real sense, because they are functioning as natural
entities, the parents cannot reproduce anything independently of God, since He
is working in them, through the nature which He designed and gave them. Because
of this they would have to consider God's rights over the fetus in all their
abortion deliberations. SOCIETY, TOO, HAS CERTAIN
RIGHTS AS A PARTY TO ALL ABORTIONS. Social interest in reproduction is seen in
the practice of granting marriage licenses and in recording births and deaths,
the "vital statistics" familiar to readers of the daily newspaper.
Society has an interest in reproduction not only for its own survival, despite
the current so-called population explosion, but because of the need for
promoting a proper dignity in all things human, especially in those areas
wherein body function might otherwise render man indistinguishable from the
lesser animal organisms. To permit any form of irresponsible tampering with the
human reproductive function could brutalize a society and be instrumental in
its own downfall, as evidenced by the fall of decadent cultures of the past. All major segments of
society might profitably address themselves to a vigorous consideration of the
many simultaneous aspects encompassed within the abortion problem. Too often a
group settles upon only one aspect and disregards the others. But unless there
is a clearing house for evaluating the conclusions of the many groups, the
efforts of the many will not solve, but only confuse, the issues. In this day
of individualism will groups work together to provide such leadership? If not,
each individual has an obligation to study all the aspects of the problem and
to integrate his own conclusions. The human mind, although influenced by
emotion, is capable of resolving problems with a remarkable degree of objectivity.
Many individuals, simultaneously arriving at unprejudiced conclusions, could
provide equitable solutions for major problems which arise in their society. Careful thought should be
able to distinguish valid argument from emotional propaganda. The woman's
simple desire for an abortion, for example, must not outweigh the value of
conclusions deduced by careful reasoning on the other essential aspects of her
situation. If it can be demonstrated that the conceptus is not a disposable
part of the mother's body, but a human individual in his or her own right, this
claim ought to be given a hearing. If parents had freely used
their bodies in actions naturally ordained to conception, are they free to
change their choice after the child has been conceived? The correct answer to
this question would seem to follow from the nature of human responsibility. To
say that some parents do not freely cause the conception of a child, because
they habitually use contraceptives, seems to argue for what seems to be irresponsibility.
It should be common knowledge that present contraceptive methods are not
totally effective. What, then, justifies contraceptive intercourse and the
risk, however small, of bringing into existence an offspring who is destined
for abortion? The very fact that the
offspring is unwanted by its parents is sometimes offered as justification for
killing it before its birth. There is no doubt that a child, already born, is
an object of pity when unwanted by his parents, but does this validate the practice
of killing offspring before they are born? Perhaps society needs to make a
decision about the meaning of free choice and responsibility, to avoid the
chaos of contradiction in accepting the growingly popular expression
"unwanted" children. Society might serve its interests better, it
would seem, by inculcating responsibility, rather than permitting it to
degenerate completely. THE POSITIVE SIDE OF THE
COIN is manifest in heroic efforts within certain local communities to sustain
medical, housing and counseling services for parents who need such help, as
alternatives to killing their unborn offspring. Liberalized legal abortion is a
poor substitute for such genuine human compassion and assistance. Not only does
abortion harm men and women morally and emotionally in many instances, but it
turns an influential segment of society against a defenseless one, tending to
destroy an honored value of civilized society. THE DOCTOR WHO IS ASKED TO
PERFORM A THERAPEUTIC ABORTION FINDS HIMSELF IN AN EMBARRASSING POSITION. By
his professional code of ethics, he has personally pledged himself to the
preservation of life. Now he is asked to kill, deliberately. Although many
doctors do not hesitate to affirm the human status of the conceptus, they
attempt to justify the killing by calling it the lesser of two evils or the
doctor might assume that the woman will become emotionally upset, or
economically impoverished, or resort to a less skilled abortionist if he
refuses to grant her request. Concerning the first two
assumptions, the doctor might well wonder whether a medical procedure should be
invoked for an obviously non-medical problem. Would it not be more logical for
him to refer her to sources of psychiatric and economic help? Why should a
medical doctor be asked to substitute a questionable remedy for the competent
help which other professionals are trained to offer? As for the third
assumption, it may be true that some of the women whom he refuses to abort
would suffer injury from unskilled abortionists. But the doctor might ask
himself how many of the unborn would he have to kill to prevent one woman from
being hurt in the process of killing hers. Those who favor abortion themselves
insist that abortion procedures are sufficiently simple for paramedical
personnel to perform them safely. The risk of injury to the woman who will have
an abortion at any cost hardly warrants the doctor's decision to prevent that
risk at the cost of his complicity in killing even one unborn of human
parentage. Because of their refusal
to abort anxious women, some doctors have received gratitude from the mothers
after their children had been born. Is it likely that easy legal abortion would
solve so well the perplexing problem of anxiety which often is associated with
pregnancy? Medical doctors ought to
be as skilled in ethics and psychology as other educated persons who are
working in areas of human sensitivity. But it seems from newspaper accounts of
some doctors' endorsement of liberalized abortion that some medical schools
have neglected this aspect of a doctor's education. With the present tendency
to accelerate medical training, the neglect is likely to become more
widespread. To retain the time-honored confidence of their patients, doctors
may have to take it upon themselves to develop their understanding of moral
values. Some doctors, impressed
with their discretionary powers of limiting aid to brain-damaged patients, may
carelessly identify such cases with the condition of the early embryo. If an
absence of brain waves in the former warrants the probable opinion that the
human being has ceased to exist, is it necessarily true that the lack of brain
waves in the early embryo indicates that a human being has not yet begun to
exist? IT SHOULD NOT BE DIFFICULT TO SEE THAT THE TWO CASES ARE QUITE
DIFFERENT. In the case of irreparable
brain damage, the body which seems to be merely "vegetating" might or
might not be the body of a human person. Perhaps the adult should have brain
waves; the early embryo should not. The damaged adult body, moreover, will
never generate brain waves again, but the embryo, given the opportunity which
belongs to it by nature, will soon generate them. In the early embryo there is
no lack of what should be present at that stage of its development. As for
brain waves, it is questionable whether they are a universal criterion for the
presence of human life. If emotional causes
underlie anyone's desire for abortion, let the problem be resolved by experts
in the sciences and arts of psychology, not forced upon medical experts whose
full-time skills should be directed toward the cure of damaged bodies. Where
poverty is claimed as the excuse for abortion, let the social sciences have an
opportunity to be truly human and helpful in their contribution to the
improvement of society, by offering workable alternatives for the killing of
the unborn. If the vastly weakened state of moral values in society is used as
an excuse for condoning abortion, let the moral leaders be challenged to rise
up and fulfill their role of guidance in society, with courage and
determination. In this day of technical
advancement, sophisticated instruments, even in the field of communication, are
often directed toward the killing of human offspring, rather than toward
endowing them with a patrimony of love and justice. Persons who have escaped
the fate of the eliminated members of their generation can hardly be in full
agreement with such a sense of values. What respect can they have for a society
which might just as well have permitted their extinction instead of birth? Once
these persons experience a taste of the life which might have been legally
denied them, they will begin, bitterly, to establish their self-sufficiency
against the day when society might, again, want to kill them, this time by
legal euthanasia. Those who favor abortion today might do well to think upon
such consequences to themselves and their society in the future. Contact us at reply@unbornperson.org