VietnamVeteran
Rookie
Posts: 27
|
 |
« on: September 23, 2004, 11:05:46 AM » |
|
ABORTION: Let's consider the case of abortion carefully. As in all the most difficult cases of law, we are faced with an apparent conflict of rights here, between the mother and the child. But upon close analysis, there is no such conflict, for each party to the conflict is exercising rights during different time frames. First, both mother and father, under voluntary circumstances, have already exercised their right when they chose to engage in marital relations--which was previous to the new child's existence. Like all other rights involving positive acts, freedom may, and usually does, become linked to consequences which the acting parties are bound to accept as part of the responsibility for those actions as they affect others. This is always true where an innocent third party is directly affected by such an act. In this case, because a child has been engendered, the parents are both obligated (not just the mother) to the engendered child in nurturing him or her to the point of self-sufficiency.
Since the child is the innocent affected party, being engendered by the acts of others, his right to preservation must be held superior to any desires of the parent or parents to terminate the pregnancy, especially for reasons of mere personal convenience. There is no right to terminate the pregnancy any more than there is a right to terminate any other voluntary contract or involuntary consequence of a responsible act which affects an innocent third party. Therefore, there is no "right" to an abortion of convenience, though there may exist some circumstances where the prosecution of this violation of the right to life can be distinguishable both in seriousness and intent from murder.
There are certain instances where there IS a legitimate conflict between the rights of the mother and those of the fetus. In the rare case where the life of the mother is clearly in danger due to the pregnancy, the mother, having a fully developed existence in life already, should be accorded the superior standing.
The cases involving rape, involuntary incest or other violations of rights of the mother, which results in pregnancy, are not so clear. What is clear is that where there is no attributable responsibility for the pregnancy to the mother, she cannot be forced to bear the consequences. Put another way, the fetus is a direct result of a crime, though not a knowing participant in the criminal act. The fetus is still as innocent as the violated woman and thus does not necessarily deserve to lose its standing to the right to life. Here then is a clear conflict of simultaneous rights. But the resolution of the problem is not so conflicting. In most cases the fetus is acting upon the mother in a manner which is only inconvenient and laborious, and yet on the other hand, an abortion against the fetus would be FATAL. The fact that she has previously been wronged does not necessarily justify the killing of the fetus, especially when the mother is not facing a commensurate conflict to her right to life.
Most arguments surrounding this issue stem from desires to be rid of any remembrances of the evil act. Though I do not want to denigrate the reality of such emotional pain, I believe it is resolvable in almost all cases without abortion. While I would clearly favor the bearing of the child, with the option of placing the baby in an adoptive home, I would not favor the prosecution of a mother who chose not to bear the child in this case. Because there are such closely conflicting rights, it ought to be left as a matter of conscience, leaving the final judgment to God. This is an example of an area of legitimate difference between people who still agree on these basic principles.
|
