Custom Search

Tuesday, March 9, 2010

Immorality of Abortion

Abortion, something referred to by Pope John Paul II as “the Unspeakable Crime,” has been a controversial issue for the last half of the last century and today. Some that all creatures have a right to life, even the unborn fetus. Others argue that it is the right to a woman’s body and her choice as to what she wants done with it. It’s the latter that needs to be examined in this case, for what is the choice in question? If a woman has a right to her body, then shouldn’t it be up to her to make the right decisions for it? If two consenting adults have unprotected sex, than the obvious consequence is pregnancy. If two people are willing to do such a thing knowing the outcome, is the woman not choosing to commit the act that gets her pregnant? And what of the rights of the unborn fetus? It can’t speak for itself, so is it truly right for an irresponsible person to make that decision for them?

It’s true that all creatures big and small have a right to life. It’s been proven by modern science that a fetus is a life of its own. As a life of its own, the creature should have a right to have a chance in this world. If a woman is in a position where she knows she is going to have sex and isn’t willing to get pregnant, then she should make sure she is prepared to engage in the act using protection. If she’s not willing to commit to that then she should get a form of birth control before the conception happens to avoid the pregnancy. If the woman is not willing to do any of these, then she should not take it out on a creature that is not at fault for her unwillingness to control what she does.

One may argue that a fetus, while living, is not yet a homo sapiens, at least in the biological sense, it is still irrelevant. Depriving any creature of its right to living is immoral. Not giving a fetus the right to live is no different than running over a dog with ones car. As frustrated as some people will get with this argument, it only shows how arrogant humans can be to think that they are above all other animals in nature because the creature homo sapiens is the only one that can discuss such a matter. Human beings are in the natural line in the animal kingdom and are not above any other creature in the hierarchy. Human technology may make people believe that humans are above other creatures, but humans are in fact not. That being said a fetus is no less of a living creature than a full fledged homo sapiens that live and dwell in a community.

While aborting a fetus may be immoral, there are two instances in which a woman should have the option to have an abortion. One is being if having a child will result in complications that could kill her, the child, or both. Risking one’s life to save another isn’t completely necessary, and while a fetus may have a right to life, it’s the woman that has had time to develop a personality of her own and knows what it’s like to live in the world and should be able to continue to do so. The other instance is if a woman was the victim of a rape the caused her to get pregnant. In this case the woman is not at fault and did nothing that showed a lack of constraint and shouldn’t live with the painful memory of such a traumatic event. If neither one of these circumstances is the case, than the woman should not be given the option to have an abortion. People should take more personal responsibility and monitor their actions better. Nothing is more gratifying than living a healthy and responsible life.


  1. All you're doing here is stating that "abortion is immoral because abortion is immoral," a tautology which ought to be avoided. What you're suggesting is using this circular reasoning as a basis for granting more rights to the unborn than to those who have, in your own words, "a personality... and [know] what it's like to live in the world and should be able to continue to do so."

    Second, what if they use birth control and still wind up pregnant, but are in no position to raise a child? My wife and I were using condoms and the pill when we became pregnant with our second child. We decided to keep it, but according to your logic, the reason we ended up pregnant in the first place is because we didn't take proper precautions; this is simply false.

  2. No, the argument is that pregnancy is the natural consequence of sex. For all I know, or you, or even your wife, she went a day without the pill because she forgot it. I'm too skeptical of this comment to take it seriously.

  3. A few comments:
    1.) Get a copy editor. Your first sentence is awkward and your second sentence makes no sense. It doesn't get much better from there.

    2.) This seems to be an argument against abortion from the standpoint of moral veganism. That's a pretty weak argument for most people.

    3.) Frink is right -- birth control fails all the time, does that qualify someone for an abortion?

    I've got a solution: let's keep abortion legal and safe and acknowledge that it is a difficult decision for people to make and they often don't want to abort but see no other solution. Nothing is more gratifying than living a healthy and responsible life, and sometimes not bearing a child into poverty/abuse/misery might be the responsible thing to do.

  4. Arguing from a vegan standpoint isn't wrong, also there's nothing wrong with my writing style.

    Birth control doesn't fail ALL the time. That's a gross overstatement. It works 99.9999% of the time. That's not near all the time.

    Abortion probably should be legal, and as a libertarian idealist I can't really say that I want it illegal, however I am strongly against it morally.