Anti Abortion Essay

This essay has a total of 2238 words and 10 pages.

Anti Abortion

Anti Abortion

By: Atif Malik

Since the Darwinian Revolution of the 19th century our society has turned upside down.
Everything under the sun had become questionable, the origin of life, how we came to be,
where are we headed and what to do in the here all became questions in life. But one of
the greatest impacts of this new age thinking is its effect on our Old World values.
Western societies values, morals and ethics became debatable, with some people striving
for change and others clinging for stability. Battle lines had been drawn and the
Liberals and Conservatives were ready to duke it out on a number of issues. One of these
debates centers on a woman’s right to have and abortion. According to the Webster’s
dictionary and abortion is defined as a miscarry, something misshapen or unnatural. An
abortion is a procedure in which an embryo or fetus is prohibited from developing by
artificial means. One could argue that this is next to murder. How can we as a society
sanction the murdering of developing babies? Also it can equally be stated that abortion
is unnatural and a health hazard to women who have undergone the procedure. Whatever the
case, abortion should be outlawed because it is immoral and mothers should face the
responsibilities of their actions.

Many arguments can be used in order to put an end to abortion or at least in order to
establish dialogue. One of the oldest arguments against abortion is the religious
standpoint. Western society (Canada & U.S.A.) is historically a Judeo-Christian culture
with Judeo-Christian values. Although in recent times we have become an increasingly
pluristic society the Old World thinking is still at the heart of our social relations and
laws. The Bible says “Thou shalt not kill” thus prohibiting people from harming others or
themselves. Abortion and its advocates violate this law. They seek to change one of the
most fundamental values of our society. Pro-choice under this stance is equated with
murder and “playing God”. One may raise the question, how can a minority inflict its
views of the majority? According to Francis X. Meenan, this is a false assumption. He
goes on to claim that those who favor abortion on demand are the real minority (Bender &
Leone, 97). He also claims that the issue of abortion is a moral debate and cannot be
settled by numbers. So even if pro-choice advocates outnumbered pro-life advocates, this
would prove or settle nothing (Bender & Leone, 97). This stance claims that we should
focus more on moral principals and eradicate the practice of abortion in our society.

The Biblical understanding of life isn’t the only religious argument that opposes abortion
and its practice. Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam and many other world faiths have a similar
stance on the topic at hand. Hinduism claims that the soul enters the embryo at the time
of conception and abortion should hence be outlawed except in the case of rape or incest.
Buddhism takes a similar stance and claims abortion is “murdering”, yet also states that
each case should be individually analyzed. Islam considers abortion as a moral crime and
sees life (its start finish) as the jurisdiction of God. Islamic law states that abortion
is illegal except in those situations in which the woman’s life is in jeopardy. The
question that arises after examining these numerous perspectives is how can these
practices which violate or threaten our fundamental beliefs be tolerated?

The critics of the ant-abortion perspective, “pro-choice”, have arguments of their own.
First and foremost they argue that biblical law and its perspectives are codes of life for
believers and in a pluralistic society this view shouldn’t be a reference or a deciding
factor. One could imagine how it would be to have another foreign view imposed on us so
why would anyone impose their views on others or the society at large? Other pro-choice
arguments have went to claim that abortion isn’t immoral because morality is subjective
hence people decide on their own what is moral or immoral. According to Daniel C.
Maguire, even religious people can disagree on abortion. One ground for going against
religion as an argument against abortion is the fact that the Church is dominated by male
influence (bender & Leone, 101). Maguire wants to know how and why men have the authority
to dictate what women decide to do with their bodies (Bender & Leone, 101). Is it “life”
they seek to protect or is it the female “sexuality” they wish to control? The Catholic
Code of Canon excommunicates one for aborting a fertilized egg, but not for killing a baby
after birth. This hypocrisy thus discredits the religious argument against abortion.

The counter-criticism, which in turn disproves of abortion claims that advocates of
pro-choice are imposing their values on the greater population and not the other way
around. In my opinion this is a good counter-strike because too often pro-choice
individuals claim that the other side is being closed minded and yet seem to neglect their
own errors.

The second argument, which opposes abortion, states that abortion shouldn’t be a woman’s
personal choice. Women only play one role in having a baby. There is a man’s role
involved and there is a new life, which under the banner of abortion would be
extinguished. A pro-abortionist denies humanity to the fetus at all, a stance that shows
a lack of moral character (Wennberg, 57). This perspective states that the growing fetus
is an autonomous life form that has its own rights regardless and separate of the woman.
I would argue that females who have undergone an abortion have infringed on the life of
another human being in order to satisfy their own needs. Other arguments opposing
abortion state that if we keep abortion legal it will become a choice ethic or a new form
of birth control (Wennberg, 9). Life will be a privilege only for a chosen few, the value
of human life will be cheapened with people only having babies when it is convenient.

Critics of this argument claim abortion should be a woman’s personal choice. They state
that true woman’s liberation is intertwined with the right to bear children or the
decision to abort their unborn child at will (Saarni, 104). Further claims have stated
that the pro-choice argument is embedded in a larger issue which the dominant
male-oriented society wants to avoid, that being feminism (Wennberg, 68). This statement
regards abortion as a social issue which opens the doors for women’s liberation and gives
them power to make decisions in their own life. As one could imagine this isn’t a view
that would be favored by male society. Other criticism claims that women who are opposed
to abortion do so because they value human well being and those politicians who seek to
outlaw abortion come in the name of “family values” (Saarni, 115). Thus pro-choice isn’t
seen as a stance, which is concerned, about the well being of people. In a quest to
establish a woman’s choice the government is viewed as a powerful entity. Perhaps the
issue of choice should be left to the individual instead of the state (Wennberg, 82). In
my opinion the right to bear children or not shouldn’t be just a woman’s decision. Why
must women’s liberation be related to her independent choice and not with a socially
intellectual choice where all parties find a middle ground? The statement that the
abortion argument is a part of a larger sphere, which includes feminism and that the
powers that be are trying to put an end to this, is based on speculation. If this were
true why is it that women have gained power all across the board in all walks of life only
to be oppressed in this issue. As for the women who seek the well being for life they
naturally side up with the pro-life perspective. To claim that politicians with their own
personal agendas are manipulating these women is saying that these women value life
alongside their male counter parts and that is the reasoning why many strive towards

The argument that legal abortion harms public health is yet another reason to re-evaluate
Continues for 5 more pages >>