Abortion Essay

[ethos]

Abortion: A Thoughtful Opinion

 

There is widespread dissention these days among professionals and laymen alike over a volatile issue as fundamental as life itself ?? abortion. Since the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in the Roe v. Wade case which cleared the way for legalized abortions, there has been relentless opposition from pressure groups contesting the legality of infanticide. These pro-life movements gained the support of the White House in the 80?s and legislation was being considered to alter the current law. But now the ensuing battle intensifies with the election of a pro-choice president in 1993. Abortion activists denote a primitive solution to an unwanted presence; a merciless, easy way out. Pro-lifers sustain their position with an intuitive ethical approach based on a respect for human life. In either case, the vision of the warring sides is obscure at best. Isn?t this sentient issue beyond the concern of individual preference?

 

There are many types of myths propagated to advance the cause of abortion. But when we consciously consider the issues of population control and individual choice, the answer can be made conclusive. Not only does abortion become morally unjustifiable, but there are no legitimate grounds for such tactics. It is proclaimed in our Declaration of Independence that ?We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.? In other words, certain rights come from God, the Creator?not others. One birthright we all expect is life itself. For one to say he has the right to perform or engage in abortion is foolish because he has to prove God gives him that right. The conventional arguements advancing abortion are not defensible.

 

Overpopulation is a popular arena in the circus of the abortion issue, but the hard facts suggest that our lack of resources are actually due to mismanagement. It is calculated that ten to twenty times the land is required for the fattening of beef as is necessary for growing crops. Because people want to raise cattle for slaughter, they have to feed an animal so much to kill it and get the meat. If that same land is used simply for grain you get ten times more food. Also, governments regulate food stockpiles by storage or destruction as a means of obtaining feasible prices on the market while environmental pollution is condoned. Why is the presence of innocent children or even illicit sex blamed for the demand on the resources of the world? Abortion is not the answer to environmental control.

 

There are certainly unwanted children who are brought into this world, but is that cause enough to resort to murder? Should we indiscriminately kill children on the pretext that a child is not loved enough? What kind of morality is that? How do we decide the criteria by which a child is loved enough? So why not search out the unwanted at any age and kill them? It?s ridiculous! Who?s to say what any individual?s quality of life will be in the future? And what mentality does a creature have that can sacrifice all others for himself?

 

Many people have the current view that a woman has the choice to do with her body as she pleases. Let?s analyze how she can prove her body belongs to her . That?s the real point. Is it her body because she is inside the body? If that?s the case I can just walk inside any Bank of America building and say, ?This building belongs to me because I?m inside it.? In other words, is it logical to say that because I?m inside of something that it belongs to me? Why is it her body? She can claim it?s her body like I may claim my body is mine, but if I am captured at gunpoint I am powerless. Of course, by physical strength someone can subdue the body. If someone kidnaps a woman and locks her away so that only they feed her, then it is their body. She may say it?s an outrage or whatever. But the facts are they?ve got it. Therefore, if she says, ?My body is mine? it must be a metaphysical claim. She must be referring to some higher principle that it is her body. If she is just talking about physical control it doesn?t belong to her anymore; someone overpowered her. Consider the conditions of war: the government controls the body and sends it to fight. Therefore, how can she prove her body belongs to her?

 

A woman will often argue free choice on the basis that she is independent or has free will, but she is not independent of nature. Nature controls the body, makes it sick, and ultimately kills it. So who actually controls the body? Doesn?t the body actually belong to nature? Can a woman justify abortion because she has free will? Can she fly in the sky with her free will? What if by her free will she decides to commit any crime? Does it mean it?s not a crime because she has free will? That?s no logic. No one would deny that she has free will. Does that mean there is no right and wrong because she has free will? She is independent. Can she commit any crime? Can she avoid old age and death? What is her independence? What is her free will? Is it the idea of the American Constitutional Republic that whatever you feel is right you can do?

 

As individuals we have little right to decide for ourselves what is right and wrong because if we could decide what is right and wrong, then we could do anything we want. If a woman can decide that it is right to perform an abortion, another person can decide that it?s right to lock her up in a dungeon and... therefore he may say that her body belongs to him. If she has the right to perform an abortion, why doesn?t he have the right to do something to her? That?s also his right. His body belongs to him just like her body belongs to her. So, therefore he wants to use his body to beat her over the head with a big stick. You see, that?s what he wants to do with his right. And since he can decide what is right and wrong, he decides it?s right to beat her over the head with a stick. So why is it wrong? Why is anyone against rape? Why can?t rapists molest women if they think it is right? It?s their body. They think it is right ?? so it is right ?? for them. That?s how pro-abortion advocates argue. Why argue that one can do something if it doesn?t affect others? What if it does affect others? What?s the big deal? A woman affects others by her abortion. Millions can be affected should her child have become a great civil rights leader or a scientist who cures an epidemic disease. And what to speak of how the fetus is affected? If ordinary people without any reference to God can be their own authority, then I can be my own authority.

 

If a female says she can hurt herself as long as it doesn?t hurt others, it?s just her opinion. If she decides her action is true, then I can just decide something else which is also true. Its just a difference of opinion. Why is her opinion any more authoritative than mine? So, then there is no authoritative opinion and things become distorted and manipulated by those who care not for logical issues, but rely on emotional appeal. Whoever can speak well is truthful. Whoever has more physical clout is pious. This is certainly a scary scenario.

 

Abortionists who insist on the right to the fate of their own bodies conveniently overlook the larger existential issue of life. They want to kill and avoid the responsibility that accompanies choice. People break the law and suffer, so therefore take away the law. What kind of logic is that? If someone commits a crime against God, against the state, and they suffer because of that, then of course, nothing can be done. Why not just enforce the law? Things become a farce when self-indulgent (demoniac) interests are passed off as ethical sentiment, i.e. the right to choose. The result is bewildering for the innocent and collectively damaging to us all as society becomes saturated with corruption.

 

It says in the Declaration of Independence that we are endowed by the Creator. It doesn?t say that we just have rights. We don?t just have rights because without God, if there?s no soul, what are we? We?re just physical organisms. So, therefore, if I come and harm you, it?s just some physical-chemical thing that took place. Its not right or wrong. Where does right and wrong come from? All major religious text and even our own Constitution say ethics come from the Creator. It is our individual responsibility ?? even our purpose ?? to understand and cooperate with Gods laws. In doing so, we cooperate with others and express a basic respect for life!

 

 

viewpoints presented are taken from

lectures given by Hridayanada das Gosvami