Abortion is a Complicated Issue! It involves the "Life of the Unborn Child" and sometimes the "Life of the Mother". Both have a "Right to Life". The question is... in the case of an Abortion... which one takes Priority? Can one "Take Priority" over the Other? Is there a Clear Cut Solution to this Dilemma?

But what about the case where the Mother's Life is "Not at Risk"?

Is Abortion Murder???

Obviously... Intentionally Killing a "Human Being" without "Just Cause" is Murder. The Problem is "What Constitutes Just Cause"? The Other Problem is "What Constitutes a Human Being"?

Early Pro-Choice Advocates argued that the Embryo is NOT a Human Being until "after" it had developed into a "Fetus"... or more of a "Recognizable" Person. This "Point of Humanness" fluctuated with the times from between one and three Months after Conception. One popular point was after the "First Trimester" of Pregnancy. At "That Point" the Child was considered a "Legal" Human Being... and thus had a Legal Right to Life. Now, Society knows that an Embryo is very much a "Human Being" even after a few weeks old... or well before the Fetus Stage of gestation.

Pro-Life Advocates argue though that the Child is a "Human Being" at Conception (Zygote)... and therefore has both an Ethical and Legal "Right to Life". Consequently (with this line of Reasoning)... Abortion Is Murder!

But... How does Society (in whatever capacity)... Prove or Disprove the "Humanity" of a "New Life Form" at Conception? Is the "Burden of Proof" incumbent on the Pro-Choice Community or the Pro-Life Community?
 

It would seem that both Common Sense and Legal Precedent would give the "Benefit of the Doubt" to the proposition that "Life Begins at Conception". Why "Wouldn't It"? What convoluted forms of Rationalizations would consider it to be otherwise? Isn't it a foundation of our legal system that one is "Innocent till proven Guilty"? Isn't it a foundation of all Religions that "Life is Sacred"... and that it originates with the "meeting of the Seeds of Man and Woman"? Even the Catholic Church calls Masturbation a Sin because "to do so" would be preventing a Life from being Conceived? Some religious thinkers believe that the Sperm itself is "Alive" (in the Essential Sense)... and that to "Cast it upon the ground" is a Moral Wrong? Agreed, the Reasoning may be taken a little "too far" at times... but it would seem that most Societies would be Predisposed to thinking of Abortion as the "Taking of a Human Life"?

While it is not my intention to use "Orthodox Religious Doctrine" as a basis for the premise that "Life Begins at Conception"... it is important to consider Ethical and Philosophical Reasoning when creating Laws that impact a Human Life... especially when that Impact results in the Termination of that Life. While We may argue the point of "When Life Begins"... there is no argument about the "Potential Life" that will be Terminated with an Abortion. Regardless of how we want to look at it... a "Life" is being prevented from reaching its Realization. It's being prevented from "Coming into Being". Somehow... there is Something Essentially Wrong about that. It's like "Playing God"... and We have to ask the Question "Who Has That Right" to make that decision?

Granted... this World that We live in is Not Perfect. To take the "Purist" stance... and look at Abortion as unequivocally "Wrong" in every case is unreasonable. Sometimes, there are no "Right Choices"... but rather just the "Lesser of Two Evils" so to speak. Perhaps the notion that Abortion can be "Justified" is an erroneous one. Perhaps... it is "Never Right"... it is just "Less Wrong" than the Other Alternatives?

When we get in the area of "Justifications"... we tread on dangerous ground. Both Science and Religion are notorious for their Justifications for "Taking Lives"... and historically both have had their "Justifications" for and against abortion. "Though Shalt Not Kill"... except when it is "Justifiable". Of course, the "Powers that Be" are the ones who determine what is "Justifiable"... and not necessarily on the basis of Reason, Human Rights, Common Sense, Love or Compassion. To often... it is on the Basis of Fear and Ignorance... or Power and Greed.

When we bring in the "Business" Aspect of Abortions... sometimes even our Scientific and Religious Reasoning are subdued by the Greed of Big Money... and the Power that can be wielded over other Human Beings. Assuming that the Medical Establishment and the associated Pharmaceutical Industries are Highly Ethical and have the Mother and Her Child's Interest at heart is a fatal mistake... both in the figurative and literal sense of  the word. Some Abortion Clinics are Highly Professional and (in their Intent) have the Mother's Health and Welfare at Heart. Unfortunately though, far too many are just more or less Predators... Exploiting the situation. Many of the Women who go to Clinics for an Abortion are both Ill-Informed and Totally Unprepared for the Abortion Itself... and the Consequences of their action for the rest of Their Lives.
 

Too many women have too little Understanding of "What Is Involved". Many are young and desperate... and simply want the Problem to "Go Away". Unfortunately, most woman are Mislead by Abortion Clinics about the Reality of Life and the "Personhood" of the Unborn. Some are told that it is "just a blob of tissue". Some Abortion Clinics have the "Intention" of serving the Mother's Interest... but for most it is "Just Business"... and many Woman will regret the decision to Abort later on in Life when they realize the Consequences and Brevity of their decision. Essentially... they are Killing a "Part of Themselves"... and in many ways... it is not only the Child that dies that day... but the Mother as well. And in many ways... there is a Part of Society that Dies also. We All Play a Part.

At this point, many Pro-Choice Advocates may say that I am being a little too "Sentimental" in My Reasoning... and that while Compassion is indeed something we all should practice more of in all areas of Life... The "Real World" is just not that simple and hardly that easy to Navigate. Many will say that Idealism is good "in Theory", but that the Pragmatic and Practical World is sometimes Cold and Ruthless. Bringing a Child into a World of Poverty and Indifference and sometimes Cruelty is not "Compassion" for the Child... but Irresponsibility on the part of Society. Furthermore, bringing a Child that is Deformed or Mentally Retarded into the World is simply Not Fair to the Child. Nor is it considered Fair to impose a Hardship on the Parents who in many cases cannot adequately care for a Severely Handicapped Child. They will further say that it is the "Mother" who should have the "Right" to make the decision that is Best for Her... and that is Best for Her Child. Some say it is a Personal Issue. Some say it is a Privacy Issue. Some say that in many cases... Abortion is the only truly Compassionate and Responsible Choice that a Mother (and Society) can make.

Is there any Validity and Substance to this line of Reasoning? Of course there is... and I'm not saying that the "Right to Life" negates the "Right to Choose". What I am saying is that... unless there are mitigating circumstances... the Right to Life takes Priority over the Right to Choose. Ideally, both of these Rights could and would be Recognized and Respected... and there wouldn't have to be a Choice Made. All efforts should be made by Government through Science and Technology to help make that condition possible and feasible and easily accessible. But... until that happens... every situation has to be taken on its own merit. And yes... sometimes the Mother's "Right to Chose" takes Priority over the Child's "Right to Life". Sometimes... it is the Choice of the "Lesser Evil" that has to be made... and there truly is No "Right" Choice.

Obviously, when it is a Choice between the Mother's Life and the Life of the Child... the Mother has the Right to Defend Her Own Life. Not only is that a Primal Instinct... but it is a Right that is understood in all Societies throughout History. That in itself may not be a "Conclusive Argument"... but it is a very powerful one. And though for many it may not be so "Obvious"... and should not be Removed from the Table of Discussion entirely...  to not honor the Individual's Right to Self Preservation and Self Defense would set in motion the seeds of a Social Change that may do far more Harm to "Human Rights" than Good.

Also... when choosing the Life of the Mother over the Life of the Child... We have to consider that We Really Don't Know Everything about "Life"... and all the Existential Aspects of Conception... and how a Human literally "Comes Into Being"? I know... it sounds like I am reversing logic and undermining My Own Argument... but the Absolute Truth is We Just Don't Know what Constitutes "Life" and what it is that Truly "Makes Us Human". That is not only true for a Person "at the time of conception"... but throughout Their Lifetime. For instance... What Is The "Soul"? Does It Exist? If so... When does It become "Part Of" the Body? Is the Soul a "Consequence" of the Body or Vice Verse? Or is the Soul Inseparable from the Body. Does Everyone "Have a Soul"? What Is the "Mind"? Is It Separate from the Soul? Is It a Manifestation of the Soul? Is the Soul Immortal? If a Baby is Aborted... does the Soul Die also... or does it "Find another Body to Inhabit"? Does the Soul "Choose" the Person to be Born with? Is Abortion an "Act Against God's Will"? What Is Consciousness? When does a Child become Conscious during the Gestation Period? And what about Reincarnation and many Other Philosophical Questions that are Essentially Relevant to Conception and Child Birth and Death (whenever it happens)?

These are many of the Questions that make the Issue of Abortion so Controversial. And They Are All Integral to Resolving this Dilemma. Ironically, You will notice that the Question of the "Soul" does not really "Pop Up" in much of the discourse on Abortion. Why Is That? Could it be that because the Soul is considered to be "Immortal"... It Is a Mute Point? If The Soul can't be "Killed" or Destroyed... then "What difference does it make" in terms of "Right to Life"? Does The Soul have "Rights"... or is that a Ridiculous Question? Should The Soul even be considered when Discussing the "Rights" of an Individual? But the Question has to be asked: "Without the Soul... are We All 'Just a Blob of Tissue' and Nothing More"? What Truly Does Make Life Sacred... If Anything? What Truly Does Constitute a "Human Being"?  

So... now that I have Totally "Muddied the Waters" on The Issue of Abortion... just what does "Justify" Abortion... other than The "Right" of the Mother to Choose Her Life over the Life of Her Child? Are there any Other Exceptions?

What about in the Case of Rape?  

One of the Arguments Against Abortion is that the Mother "Chose" to have Intercourse... and thus has a Responsibility and Obligation to have the Baby... and Conscientiously Raise It. But this is Not True in the Case of Rape. There is No "Choice"... and some see that condition as "Not" having any Responsibility to The Child or Its Welfare... at the Time of Birth or throughout Life. But does that give the Mother... or The State... the Justification to Terminate The Pregnancy? No... It Does not! The Unborn Child has a "Right to Life"... and even though the Mother may not be Responsible for Raising It (which is Questionable) and even though "Her Rights" have been Violated... the Unborn Child is Innocent of any Wrongdoing and Its "Right to Life" takes Priority over any Considerations or Inconveniences of the Mother.

What about the case of Severe Retardation or Physical Deformity? 

Here we have to ask the Question "What is Best for the Child"? The answer is... "We just Don't Know". We can "Presume"... but whether a Child will Regret their Birth later on in life (and wish they had never been born)... or will embrace whatever Life they have been given and cherish it... we just can't predict. When it becomes a Question of "Responsibility" to the Unborn Child (by Society and the Mother)... just "What Is" the most Responsible thing to do? Who should be Involved in making those Decisions?

Also... the question of Responsibility to the Mother and Society Itself has to be asked. Raising a Severely Retarded and/or Physically Handicapped Child is a Tremendous Hardship for Everyone Involved. Not only is there extraordinary sacrifice in terms of Time and Energy and Money for the Mother and Family... but also for the Local and even National Society. Are Taxpayers Responsible for these Expenses? Should they be? Is "Social Responsibility" a condition of "No Choice" Pregnancies?

If Society has the Legal and Moral Obligation to Defend the Life of any Child... doesn't it have the Obligation to provide for Its Welfare (and the Welfare of the Mother) when the Child is going to have "Needs" that would far exceed the Needs of a Normal Child? If Society takes the Decision away from the Mother... then isn't Society partly Responsible to the Care of this Special Child? Of course, the answer is "Yes" if the Mother has no Choice in the matter of having an Abortion.

Obviously, there is no way to properly "Tie Up" all of the Issues involved with Abortion. It is one of the most Complex Contemporary Personal and Social Issues. Perhaps it is Ultimately a matter of Idealism vs. Pragmatism (along with "Something Else"). And when it comes to a Final Decision in any One Case... the fact remains that both Ethical and Practical Concerns have to both be Weighed. To take the "Purest" Approach is not going to provide "Justice" for All in All Situations. Still... unless there are "Mitigating Circumstances"... Society has No Choice but to defend the Rights of the Unborn... And without "Due Cause", Legally Interpret Intentional Abortion as Essentially Wrong and "In Deed" an Act of Murder.

For a Better Informed & Involved Public...

Lonnie J. Burris
Activist & Concerned Citizen