by Katie O'Flaherty
As it has been for
longer than living memory, abortion is still a topic hotly debated by many,
some questioning the ethics of the decisions, others looking for answers
through science. And now, with Donald Trump publicly stating that he would
de-fund the charity Planned Parenthood, due to his 'pro-life' beliefs, putting
an ever more political spin on the debate.
Over the years, it seems
the primary contenders in this debate are the scientists, against a significant
proportion of religious people. And even these 'sides' are not as black and
white as they seem. A number of scientists disagree with the principles of
abortion, and a large number of religious people also believe in the freedom of
the individual to choose.
In the UK, it is legal
to have an abortion up until 24 weeks, yet many argue it is too late, as 'on a
different floor of a hospital, a premature baby can be saved at a younger age
than 24 weeks'. Then arises the question of when life really begins. Is it when
the egg is first fertilised, or after the zygote has formed, or only during
birth? And science hasn't provided a solid answer to this question, giving even
more scope for debate.
On top of these other
questions, the circumstances can drastically alter how many people view the
morality of the abortion. Many abortions take place after rape, or if the
parents would not be able to fully provide for the child due to health
problems. Furthermore, many people would consider an abortion if they found
out, before birth, that their child would have a debilitating disease, which
may prohibit their quality of life, or limit their lifetime. And many others
choose abortions because of an unexpected pregnancy, unplanned for, but which
many argue that they could cope with relatively easily.
Many of these questions
can only be answered by individuals, using their own principles and moral
compass to find the solution right for them. Therefore, the problem lies in
trying to achieve an agreement, as to what can be done 'normally'. Not only
this, but many feel it to be their 'duty' to force their own opinions on other
people, whose circumstances they have never experienced, and likely cannot
understand. And much as many people believe their moral compass is the sole way
forward for both them and all who come into contact with them, the likelihood
of them understanding the emotional complexities of the situation, and their
lack of respect for each person's freedom to make their own decision, is a
disrespect that not only generalises so many unique, and sometimes painful,
situations, but also partially violates a human's right to make their own
decisions.
From this, I am by no
means saying that there should be no laws dictating the morality of certain
parts of an abortion; for one, an abortion of a baby within a few weeks of when
it can healthily be born is not something that should be commonly encouraged in
society. The point-blank view, however, that abortions should be made illegal
completely disregards the fact that each situation is individual, with its own
complexities and emotional connotations.
Surely the nature of the unborn needs to be established prior to any further discussion on the morality of abortion?
ReplyDeleteIf it is a human being, one then has to justify why it can be killed.
If it isn't, why should there be any laws governing abortion at all?