First and foremost, the craziest
thing about the abortion saga is that all those involved, especially in
advancing a thousand and one arguments in favour of its legalization are
already born – with absolutely no hope of knowing what being aborted feels like
and that is if at all they think fetuses feel. Suffice it, therefore, to say
that almost all arguments for the legalization of abortion are intrinsically
selfish.
Some say the pregnant fellow has
got right over her body and so should decide whatever she wills about the fate
of the unborn. Some others are of the opinion that victims of such sexual abuse
as rape should beat the bargain at the abortion table. And yet another argument
comes from the quarters that cite such cases as ectopic pregnancy, where the fetus
poses a threat to the mother’s reproductive capacity or her very own life. In
this case, the mother’s life is adjudged ‘superior’ to that of the fetus, who
should let the mother live on for prospective healthier and multiple
conceptions. That the preceding argument makes a case is true but that it is
convincing is false. The seeming veracity of the claim hinges on the fact that
it appears to lean on such positive principles as freedom and survival.
However, it is all very much faulted by the one principle of the ‘inviolability
of human life.’
The big questions in this saga
are:
1. Is
the principle of the inviolability of human life merely a bioethical or
religious construct?
2. Is
the embryo or fetus yet a human life?
3. If
yes, is an embryo’s life at par with that of the mother and the rest of us?
By inviolability of human life is
meant that human life is of intrinsic value, that is, valued for no reason other
than the fact that it possesses absolute value; an end in itself – and
subordinated to none but its creator, God. That human life is precious is an
understatement of this principle. It means that human life is untouchable, a
violation of which is fraught with dire consequences.
To the question of whose
handiwork is the principle of the inviolability of human life, bioethical
and/or religious, I wish to contend that the principle is as well rooted in
secular living and deeply ingrained in our common sense. That is, the principle
is as much as secular as it is religious. No doubt, however, is the fact that
since the author of the principle is God, the religious naturally has it –
since religion is a duty for God. Moreover, the adjudged most secular community
in the world is the United States, right? Then find these words in the text of
their 1776 Declaration of Independence: …We
hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, and that
they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights among which
are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Nevertheless, always
remember that life is inviolable, liberty is not license, and happiness is not merely pleasure but
wellbeing and human flourishing.
At this juncture, a pondering on
this question will get us truly involved in the debate: When Did I Begin?
A sincere and true response to
the above question would be the enough argument you need to understanding that
the point in question is not just about religion or bioethics but about
society. The woman who gunned down an adult and the woman who flushed a fetus
down the drain shot from the same barrel – one shot earlier and the other did
the same thing later. Society had lost something on both occasions, as you
wouldn’t be reading this piece if your mum were the woman that shot earlier.
Finally, before the pro-abortionists found their
way to the front pages of the dailies, moral guidelines on how to deal with
difficult cases were there – ectopic pregnancy and their likes. What is actually
being argued about is whether a woman could just walk into any hospital and
request that her pregnancy be terminated for no but one reason: “I just don’t
want to be pregnant; it wasn’t in the plan; it was an accident”. Sadly, in the
name of civility we have done a lot! We have bitten off everything and now
biting off what is left – ourselves. Are we not finished?
No comments:
Post a Comment