|
LadyEllen -> RE: Reproductive Rights (5/18/2007 4:13:11 AM)
|
Unless we are to concede that a woman's reproductive organs are the property of the state, then it must remain the decision of women as to if and how they produce offspring.
On the question of the legality and even morality of abortion, it does well to remember that whether legal or moral or not, abortions have been provided in the past and would be provided in future in the case of a ban, in less than suitable conditions and with less than adequate resources. Indeed the move to legalise abortion was as I believe, motivated as much by concern over the prior situation as by any other factor.
There may well be a religious motivation to ban abortion. However this is not sufficient in my opinion to justify the removal of a woman's rights over her own person, which rights it must be noted are discounted entirely (not just in the case of reproduction) by the religions which would prefer a ban. Also to be taken into account, is that the religious views of others are not in any way relevant to those not part of the faith in question. Even should those religious views gain ascendancy through the democratic process, they remain religious views and not political policy, because for them to gain credence as political policy, must be to concede all personal and individual rights to the state, wherever the religion concerned disagrees with those rights. In such an instance, the religious rulers would also have to reinstitute slavery amongst other horrors supported by their texts; it could not be a pick and mix affair, unless they wish to concede that their rule is about political power rather than religious salvation for the nation.
Such religious motivations must also in such case, account for the psychological, social and monetary cost of a ban. Yes, I would say that ideally, we would want every child to be born healthy, to loving, stable parents to which the religious view aspires - but in the real world, even in the far more religious 1950s and before, the converse occurred with sufficient regularity to have prompted debate. In those days, children born to unwed mothers and to legal minors were forced to be adopted or were taken into social or church care, and the dreadful stories we hear in our times about the consequences of this should provide us with material for strong reflection before going down such a path again.
Aside from the question of personal rights and freedoms, and the potentially horrific danger of illegal abortion, and the consequences of a ban in terms of society as a whole outlined in the previous paragraph, we must also consider that abortion is not an easy way out of anything. I have known two young women now, who chose the abortion route; one from necessity as she saw it, since her child was suffering many abnormalities and would suffer its whole life, the other out of concern for herself and the child, given that the father turned into a monster when he knew she was pregnant, did not want children and no longer wanted her. Both women suffered immensely, far more than words can relate.
However, it must also be remembered that there is a second person involved in any pregnancy - the father. Whilst it is not his body which is pregnant, he must have a say in things too I feel. How much of a say is another question on which I am not decided, but I have seen the pain suffered by a father whose partner undertook an abortion without his prior knowledge, when he loved the woman concerned and very much wanted children. Paternal rights seem often to be overlooked it seems, though in the end it must be the woman who has the final say.
In the UK as I understand it, an abortion can only be provided where two doctors agree that to pursue the pregnancy to delivery would result in significant physical or psychological harm to the mother, or where the child is not likely to enjoy any quality of life. In practice however, it would seem that these controls are often overlooked or met only for convenience' sake. The whole question does need to be looked at again perhaps, and especially nowadays when ever more prematurely born children can be raised ex utero, which was not a situation envisioned when the laws were first passed or in subsequent amendments regarding time limits.
E
|
|
|
|
