Abortion and the Rule of Law - Assignment Example

THE ABORTION DEBATE The Abortion Debate: Pro versus Con Is abortion socially, culturally, economically, legally, morally and spiritually permissible?Is abortion a reprehensible act? Who is right? Who is wrong? Who is to judge? Will the abortion debate be ever conclusive? Abstract The abortion debate centers around two contentious beliefs: i. That human life, in the form of an ovum and spermatozoon, becomes a human person at the time of conception, and ii. That human life becomes a human person after conception- perhaps when the fetus looks human, or becomes sentient, or when it has half emerged from its mothers body, or is born, or is functioning completely independent of its mother1. The adherents of the first belief take a deeply religious viewpoint, are uncompromisingly anti-abortionists and contend that the embryo is human life, which is sacred, and its destruction would tantamount to willful homicide. Followers of the second are equally steadfast in their opinion that to equate abortion to murder rests on a wafer thin foundation of religious beliefs and that embryo neither has life not is an individual with rights. The choice to or not to abort should vest with the pregnant woman. The debate arouses virulent passions2. Is there a meeting ground? The Abortion Debate: Pro versus Con To being forth the intensity of emotions aroused by the contentious issue of abortion and some semblance of objectivity, viewpoints of a male and female author have been considered. The female is a staunch anti-abortionist, and the male an ‘enlightened’ believer in freedom of choice. In the interest of simplification, the adherents of divergent viewpoints have been placed in two categories, namely, pro and anti abortionists. Pro-abortion: Title, Author and Thesis In an article titled, “Abortion rights are pro-life,” Dr. Leonard Peikoff3 takes an aggressive stance, and wonders why the pro-abortion rights forces are on the defensive. He willingly provides the answer: because nobody is any longer defending the right to abortion on moral grounds. He exhorts the pro-abortionists not to be apologetic and fight tooth and nail. He believes that “the embryo is clearly pre-human; only the mystical notions of religious dogma treat this clump of cells as constituting a person,” and “is not an independently existing, biologically formed organism, let alone a person.” Dr. Peikoff expounds the view that “which lives within the body of another can claim no right against its host. Rights belong only to individuals, not to collectives or to parts of an individual.” He quotes acclaimed litterateur Ayn Rand: “Rights do not pertain to a potential, only to an actual being. A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born." Dr. Peikoff argues that denying a woman the right to choose whether to bear a child or not would be a violation of the fundamental principle of freedom. Anti-abortion: Title, author, and Thesis Diane S. Dew, a mother and an anti-abortionist campaigner, in an article titled, “Its a child, not a choice,” argues that society’s penchant for defense of rights of an individual smacks of the diabolical and pro-abortionists have blown it out of proportion. She contends that the pro-abortion lobby is backed by vested interests, notably, doctors, for whom “abortion is big business.” Potential life should not be sacrificed at the altar of convenience. Since the legalization of abortion in 1973, our nation has lost an entire generation to abortion. We are beginning to see some of the effects of that diabolical decision, as universities nationwide find themselves strapped for students. How many Michaelangelos have we destroyed in the name of convenience? How many Edisons have we erased from the pages of human progress?4 Dew builds up an anti-abortion case based on her own horrendous experience, wherein she combated terrible odds to bring forth life and now delights in her choice. She forcefully brings out her argument that the pro-abortion lobby should be discredited with the words: “All abortion has to offer is a dead baby. What kind of ‘choice’ is that?” Two Facts Pro Side Dr. Peikoff, in building up a case for pro-abortion, brings out two facts. First, he underscores the point that undertaking parental responsibility has financial, psychological and moral dimensions, the burden of which continues not for a few months or years but decades, may be, a life-time. “Being a parent is a profound responsibility- financial, psychological, moral- across decades. Raising a child demands time, effort, thought and money.5” Second, the fact that an embryo has life is based on religious beliefs and, consequently, irrational. Moreover, an organism which lives and thrives in another body cannot be thought of as an individual and claim rights. The embryo is clearly pre-human; only the mystical notions of religious dogma treat this clump of cells as constituting a person. That which lives within the body of another can claim no right against its host. Rights belong only to individuals, not to collectives or to parts of an individual6. Two Facts Anti-abortion Side. Dew has mustered startling facts in defense of her argument that the “rights issue” on which the pro-abortionists have based their case has not only been blown out of proportion but is grossly skewed in that an animal has been bestowed more rights by the lawmakers than ‘an unborn child’. In Wisconsin, stepping on a snail can land you in jail- with a $10,000 fine. But a woman can have her baby sliced and diced, for a price, right into the ninth month of pregnancy- all within the confines of the law7. Dew has brought forth data to prove a point that the pro-abortionists have been relying on specious arguments, devoid of truth, that is, citing cases of rape and incest to justify abortion. Feminists repeatedly cite instances of rape and incest in their defense of abortion. However, only 2% of the 1.5 million abortions committed in the US every year are procured for reasons other than mere convenience8. TWO OPINIONS PRO SIDE Dr. Peikoff has tried to equate capricious killing of an animal by its owner with that of the extraction of an embryo from the womb of a woman, and opined that in either case the State has no business to interfere: the choice be left to the owner in the case of an animal and the woman, where an embryo is involved. If someone capriciously puts to death his cat or dog that can well be reprehensible, even immoral, but it is not the province of the state to interfere. The same is true of an abortion which puts to death a far less-developed growth in a womans body9. The State, however, in its judgment, based on public opinion, has already chosen to interfere in the both the cases by enactment of requisite legislation, and enforcement. Even so, Dr. Peikoff’s opinion stays in the pro-abortionist arsenal. Dr. Peikoff has also opined that “sentencing a woman to sacrifice her life to an embryo is not upholding the ‘right-to-life’.” In the eventuality of such a situation arising, the medical profession steps in to save life. Nonetheless, Dr. Peikoff manages to raise the issue of choice between the life of a woman and that of embryo, which the pro-abortionists refuse to accept, has life. Two Opinions Anti-abortion Side Dew has contented that “abortion is big business…the doctors are making a killing.” Her statement may entirely be in the realm of truth. However, in the absence of supporting statistical data in the article, perforce this has to be treated as Dew’s personal opinion. She has also brought forth the argument that the universities are starved of students due to abortions, implying thereby that an entire of generation has been willfully wiped out. The reason may be altogether different. The younger generation may be looking for better and more immediate earning opportunities than going through the protracted and expensive rigmarole of acquiring a university degree. We are beginning to see some of the effects of that diabolical decision, as universities nationwide find themselves strapped for students. How many Michaelangelos have we destroyed in the name of convenience? How many Edisons have we erased from the pages of human progress10? Whether mothers would have bred Michaelangelos and Edisons or imbeciles is once again, a matter of opinion. Problems Pro Side While governments across the world with the exception of Islamic countries have largely accepted the view of the pro-abortionists and enacted suitable legislation, the decision to abort remains subjective to an individual’s own belief and the perception of what is correct in the face of unfolding reality. The issue is the proper role for government. If a pregnant woman acts wantonly or capriciously, then she should be condemned morally- but not treated as a murderer11. In the above quote, Dr. Peikoff concedes that that there is a moral issue involved and thereby weakens the foundation of the pro-abortionist contention that an embryo is devoid of life. Whether a pregnant woman, who ‘wantonly or capriciously’ undergoes an abortion should be treated as a murderer or not becomes a secondary issue. Problems Anti-abortion Side. Dew has weakened her argument by resort to an unsubstantiated statement: “We are beginning to see some of the effects of that diabolical decision, as universities nationwide find themselves strapped for students.” Such a statement, to earn the seal of authenticity, has to be backed by an intensive and wide survey and ensuing statistics. Dew has unnecessarily exposed her passionate anti-abortion arguments to attack by pro-abortionists. Propaganda Techniques Pro Side Dr. Peikoff subtly plays with words: “Anti-abortionists are not lovers of life- lovers of tissue, maybe. But their stand marks them as haters of real human beings.” He employs a double-edged sword and succeeds in exciting the passions of pro-abortionists, even neutral observers, and, at the same time, condemns the anti-abortionists. It’s quite a brilliant craftsmanship in words… but then, he is a professional writer, a journalist and editor. Propaganda Techniques Anti Side In contrast to Dr. Peikoff, Dew’s technique is direct, appealing to and nurturing and inflaming a woman’s ‘motherly compassion’. This was not some blob of tissue I could have had dissected and discarded at will, but a separate, living being. We had distinct blood types. I heard his heartbeat. He jumped when he had the hiccups; he was agitated and kicked when I ate garlic12. She brilliantly garnishes it with the delight and joy of birth and sense of fulfillment thereafter, undermining the pro-abortionist argument of freedom of choice, which is nothing more than flimsy convenience. Every time I look into my boys big brown eyes, or hear his "Mommy, I love you," I know it was right. Best thing that ever happened to me… I know I have hugs and kisses that no money can buy. No, whats convenient is not always best, or right13. Credibility and Credentials of Pro Author Dr. Peikoff is a known writer, who probably earns a living mustering others’ opinion, interpreting them and putting forth his own. His credentials are noteworthy. He has been Associate Editor with Ayn Rand of the The Objectivist and The Ayn Rand Letter (1971-76). He is also the author of Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand, and the founder of the Ayn Rand Institute. Credibility and Credentials of the Anti-abortion Author. Dew has been very prolific as an anti-abortion campaigner. Her articles have been published in leading American newspapers. Her appeal lies in the fact that she is a mother, who beat the worst possible odds to bear her child. She went against medical advice and came out on top. Her words: “No, abortion was no option,” would remain a telling, sad commentary on pregnant woman who “wantonly and capriciously’ choose to abort. Her credentials as an anti-abortion campaigner are superb. Most Empirical Author: Why? In utilizing empiricism to buttress arguments, Dew scores over Dr. Peikoff. She has taken pains to muster facts and figures to prove her point. She could, however, have done better and avoided her lapse in the opinion that universities are deprived of students because of mass-scale abortions without the prop of relevant statistical evidence. Compared to Dew, Dr. Peikoff has chosen to ignore empiricism to buttress his opinions. He chooses to rely on rationality of thought against the use of ‘questionable’ religious beliefs by anti-abortionists. The Nature of Biases According to the website of Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance14, any discussion on abortion involves two different concerns: i. Whether an abortion is a good or bad option for a given woman in her specific situation. ii. If a woman, after consulting with her physician and support network, decides to have an abortion, under what conditions, if any, should the government step in, veto her decision to have an abortion, and force her to give birth. The website claims that it is maintained and staffed by a multi-faith group of individuals, who have diverse beliefs on all aspects of abortion, and strive to present viewpoints “clearly, objectively and accurately”. Is the Pro Writer Biased? Why? Dr. Peikoff brings out his bias in the words: The anti-abortionists claim to being "pro-life" is a classic Big Lie. You cannot be in favor of life and yet demand the sacrifice of an actual, living individual to a clump of tissue. Anti-abortionists are not lovers of life- lovers of tissue, maybe. But their stand marks them as haters of real human beings15. In accusing anti-abortionists of being big liars, Dr. Peikoff loses sense of objectivity and introduces and an unbridled element of bias, which is confounded by a further accusation that anti-abortionists are “haters of real human beings”. If a judgment has to be passed, one can safely state that it does not behoove an eminent writer to denigrate an opposing viewpoint in such an obnoxious manner. Is the Anti-abortion Writer Biased? Why? Dew has struggled and triumphed over her personal battle with abortion, and probably, believes that others’ can emulate her example. In harboring such a perception and insistence that her choice is the best choice, she is inclined to ride roughshod over others’ freedom of choice. Thereby, a bias creeps in, clouds her judgment and she ends up disdaining weaker women, who lack the physical, moral and spiritual strength and choose to opt for the ‘convenient’ route of abortion. CONCLUSION: PRO OR CON? WHY? Literature available on the Internet notably that of the Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance, does not offer a conclusive harmonious end to the issue of abortion. Opinion and opposing viewpoints go to the extreme. Some anti-abortionists believe that abortions cannot be accepted and “it is better to let the woman and fetuses die rather than save the womans life by terminating the pregnancy”. In fact a bill was placed before the Georgia legislature to codify this point of view in law16. However, the more liberal believe that abortion could be acceptable in the case of pregnancy due to rape or incest or to prevent a woman from being seriously or permanently disabled or very serious health affects. The range of views of pro-abortionists on the morality of abortion also varies: i. very early abortions are morally acceptable, ii. only abortions during the first trimester are okay, iii. abortions before the fetus becomes viable are okay, and iv. choice of abortion up to the time that the fetus is born should rest with the woman. The Ontario Consultants for Religious Tolerance have quoted the radical view of ethicist Peter Singer, who has suggested that “infants with severe disabilities should be killed" if the parents so choose. His reasoning is that they have diminished likelihood of enjoying an adequate "quality of life." They conclude that till date, there is no single perception of what is right and wrong. Even so, the website points out that there is significant agreement on the fact that the ovum, spermatozoa, a hair follicle, skin cell, et cetera are all forms of human life because: i. they all contain human DNA, ii. an ovum and spermatozoa are not a human person but a newborn baby is a human person, deserving of protection, iii. somewhere between the ovum and spermatozoa stage, and the newborn baby, a new human person comes into existence, and once a new human person exists, then its life must be protected. The difference of opinion arises on the point at which a human person comes into existence. Most pro-abortionists believe that this happens at conception or shortly later, when a unique DNA is created. However, others believe that this happens much later in pregnancy. They use different criteria from, when the fetus loses it gill slits and tail and begins to look like a mammal to actual birth. From the foregoing, the conclusion that emerges, according to the Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance, is: no consensus exists now; none appears to be possible in the future. Nonetheless, it would be worthwhile quoting Paul Campos: Whether of not abortion should be legal turns on the answer to the question of whether and at what point a fetus is a person. This is a question that cannot be answered logically or empirically. The concept of personhood is neither logical nor empirical. It is essentially a religious or quasi-religious idea, based on one’s fundamental and, therefore, unverifiable assumptions of the nature of the world17. Conceding that Paul Campos’ words are objective in thought and conception and taking into account that the world in the 21st century is increasingly moving towards freedom of choice, which is in conformity with the freedom of the human spirit, personally, one is personally inclined to take sides with pro-abortionists. It would be in fitness of things to quote Ayn Rand: I cannot project the degree of hatred required to make those women run around in crusades against abortion. Hatred is what they certainly project, not love for the embryos, which is a piece of nonsense no one could experience, but hatred, a virulent hatred for an unnamed object...Their hatred is directed against human beings as such, against the mind, against reason, against ambition, against success, against love, against any value that brings happiness to human life. In compliance with the dishonesty that dominates todays intellectual field, they call themselves pro-life. Abortion is a moral right- which should be left to the sole discretion of the woman involved; morally, nothing other than her wish in the matter is to be considered. Who can conceivably have the right to dictate to her what disposition she is to make of the functions of her body18? Annexure-I Abortion Rights are Pro-Life by Leonard Peikoff  (January 23, 2003) Thirty years after Roe V. Wade, no one defends the right to abortion in fundamental, moral terms, which is why the pro-abortion rights forces are on the defensive. Abortion-rights advocates should not cede the terms "pro-life" and "right to life" to the anti-abortionists. It is a womans right to her life that gives her the right to terminate her pregnancy. Nor should abortion-rights advocates keep hiding behind the phrase "a womans right to choose." Does she have the right to choose murder? Thats what abortion would be, if the fetus were a person. The status of the embryo in the first trimester is the basic issue that cannot be sidestepped. The embryo is clearly pre-human; only the mystical notions of religious dogma treat this clump of cells as constituting a person. We must not confuse potentiality with actuality. An embryo is a potential human being. It can, granted the womans choice, develop into an infant. But what it actually is during the first trimester is a mass of relatively undifferentiated cells that exist as a part of a womans body. If we consider what it is rather than what it might become, we must acknowledge that the embryo under three months is something far more primitive than a frog or a fish. To compare it to an infant is ludicrous. If we are to accept the equation of the potential with the actual and call the embryo an "unborn child," we could, with equal logic, call any adult an "undead corpse" and bury him alive or vivisect him for the instruction of medical students. That tiny growth, that mass of protoplasm, exists as a part of a womans body. It is not an independently existing, biologically formed organism, let alone a person. That which lives within the body of another can claim no right against its host. Rights belong only to individuals, not to collectives or to parts of an individual. ("Independent" does not mean self-supporting--a child who depends on its parents for food, shelter, and clothing, has rights because it is an actual, separate human being.) "Rights," in Ayn Rands words, "do not pertain to a potential, only to an actual being. A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born." It is only on this base that we can support the womans political right to do what she chooses in this issue. No other person--not even her husband--has the right to dictate what she may do with her own body. That is a fundamental principle of freedom. There are many legitimate reasons why a rational woman might have an abortion--accidental pregnancy, rape, birth defects, danger to her health. The issue here is the proper role for government. If a pregnant woman acts wantonly or capriciously, then she should be condemned morally--but not treated as a murderer. If someone capriciously puts to death his cat or dog, that can well be reprehensible, even immoral, but it is not the province of the state to interfere. The same is true of an abortion which puts to death a far less-developed growth in a womans body. If anti-abortionists object that an embryo has the genetic equipment of a human being, remember: so does every cell in the human body. Abortions are private affairs and often involve painfully difficult decisions with life-long consequences. But, tragically, the lives of the parents are completely ignored by the anti-abortionists. Yet that is the essential issue. In any conflict its the actual, living persons who count, not the mere potential of the embryo. Being a parent is a profound responsibility--financial, psychological, moral--across decades. Raising a child demands time, effort, thought and money. Its a full-time job for the first three years, consuming thousands of hours after that--as caretaker, supervisor, educator and mentor. To a woman who does not want it, this is a death sentence. The anti-abortionists attitude, however, is: "The actual life of the parents be damned! Give up your life, liberty, property and the pursuit of your own happiness." Sentencing a woman to sacrifice her life to an embryo is not upholding the "right-to-life." The anti-abortionists claim to being "pro-life" is a classic Big Lie. You cannot be in favor of life and yet demand the sacrifice of an actual, living individual to a clump of tissue. Anti-abortionists are not lovers of life--lovers of tissue, maybe. But their stand marks them as haters of real human beings. Annexure-II Its a Child, Not a Choice19  We live in a rights-crazed society. Even animals are afforded rights these days. Still, the unborn are not protected. Legally, the fertilized egg of an eagle has more rights than an unborn child. And in Wisconsin, stepping on a snail can land you in jail -- with a $10,000 fine. But a woman can have her baby sliced and diced, for a price, right into the ninth month of pregnancy -- all within the confines of the law. Yes, abortion is big business. And the doctors are making a killing. Since the legalization of abortion in 1973, our nation has lost an entire generation to abortion. We are beginning to see some of the effects of that diabolical decision, as universities nationwide find themselves strapped for students. How many Michaelangelos have we destroyed in the name of convenience? How many Edisons have we erased from the pages of human progress? The birth of Jesus Christ forever altered the course of human history. Yet, if ever a woman had reason to refuse a pregnancy, it was his mother. Consider the social, financial and practical circumstances in which she found herself: unmarried, young, and "on the road" (it was the year of the census). Her baby would be born in a barn. Still, the Bible says, "in the fullness of time, God sent his Son." (Gal 4:4) Do you suppose he made a mistake? Feminists repeatedly cite instances of rape and incest in their defense of abortion. However, only 2% of the 1.5 million abortions committed in the US every year are procured for reasons other than mere convenience. When I found out I was pregnant, years ago, it was not a "convenient" time. My husband was unemployed; we had no insurance and we had just been evicted. We didnt even have the money to move. Too proud to turn to welfare, we simply did without. No running water. No heat. Canned goods froze in the cupboard. Water in the sink (from snow I had melted) became solid overnight. I was 1,000 miles from family and didnt have a friend in town.  To further complicate matters, I tested positive for German measles. The doctor suspected (incorrectly, it turns out) "severe deformity of the fetus." He suggested abortion.   Naive as I was, I had never heard of such a thing. Kill the life within me? This was not some blob of tissue I could have had dissected and discarded at will, but a separate, living being. We had distinct blood types. I heard his heartbeat. He jumped when he had the hiccups; he was agitated and kicked when I ate garlic.  No, abortion was no option. Ours was a rocky marriage. After one beating that put me in bed for weeks, I almost lost the baby. My husband left shortly after the baby was born. Turns out, he had another family "on the side." I cant say it has been easy these past years; God intended that there be two parents. But every time I look into my boys big brown eyes, or hear his "Mommy, I love you," I know it was right. Best thing that ever happened to me.  So what if I got a late start on my education? So what if I dont have time to socialize, with the many demands upon my time? (Single parents have twice the responsibility, and half the help.) I know I have hugs and kisses that no money can buy. No, whats convenient is not always best, or right. Easy Street is a dead end. What if Jesus Christ had only been thinking of himself, and his "right," when it came time to go to the cross? Calvary was not convenient, but interrupted his career--big time. God is forgiving, and we all make mistakes. But there are choices we will have to live with for the rest of our lives. The choice I live with has a name, a smile, a birthday. And a future. All abortion has to offer is a dead baby. What kind of "choice" is that? Annexure-III Quotations "Making the decision to terminate a pregnancy or to bring a fetus to term is by far the most wrenching experience Ive ever had. The right to choose is not a luxury; it is a responsibility that demands intense introspection and awareness." - S. Boyd “Through sonograms and other technology, we can clearly see that unborn children are members of the human family as well. They reflect our image, and they are created in Gods own image." - U.S. President George W. Bush “Reproductive freedom—the fundamental right of every individual to decide freely and responsibly when and whether to have a child—is a reaffirmation of the principle of individual liberty cherished by most people worldwide. It helps ensure that children will be wanted and loved, that families will be strong and secure, and that choice rather than chance will guide the future of humanity." - Planned Parenthood Federation of America “To them, abortion is a health service for women. To us, abortion means a funeral service for the pre-born baby.” - Stuart Shepard: Family news in focus. References Peter Staudenmaier. Peter Singer and Eugenics. http://www.social-ecology.org/ Peter Singer (2nd Ed., 1993), Practical Ethics, Cambridge University Press. S. Boyd. Give us liberty: The approval of RU-486 isnt about morals, its about options. www.salon.com Planned Parenthood Federation of America: Mission and Policy Statements. www.plannedparenthood.org/ Paul Campos (2002). Abortion and the rule of law. Scripps Howard News Service. http://www.nandotimes.com/ Stuart Shepard (2005). The Linguistics of Abortion and Politics: Family News in Focus. http://www.family.org/ } Bruce A. Robinson (2007). Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance. http://www.religioustolerance.org/abortion.htm Paul Campos (2002), Abortion and the rule of law. Scripps Howard News Service. http://www.nandotimes.com/ Read More