Recently, I have been engaging in some heated debates on the blogosphere about the question of abortion and women’s rights. And I have had the fortune of talking to people with various moral attitudes, from pro-choice to moderate, to pro-life. These conversations gave me some perspective in the search for a middle ground in the discussion. Unfortunately, I found that most debates, on whether it is ok for society to give women complete control over the life of their unborn child, almost exclusively take place between the pro-life, usually religiously motivated, and pro-choice camps. The two sides frequently combat each other in the following manner: The pro choice camp believes it is essential that society give women complete control over their bodies and acknowledges that such freedom inevitably carries undesired and sometimes cruel consequences. It also says that the alternative option, restricting a woman’s control over her own body through law, de-evolves society to the point that it becomes unfree and unjust towards the fairer sex. The pro-life camp, however, suggests that the life of a defenseless child is sacred to the point that it must be protected at all costs. This group suggests that the right to life overrules the right to choice, and it quite often insinuates that the problem lies with sexual education. Therefore, through this short essay, I will seek to advance the argument that the right to choice for either an informed or an uninformed minor or mature woman, supersedes the right to life of an unborn child. Cruel perhaps as it may sound, there are three reasons as to why I think the former is superior to the later. First, any society that forces women to relinquish control over their own bodies through law is an unjust and brutal society. It considers women as second class citizens. Citizens that do not have the right to make the most intimate decision of all: to keep or kill the fruit of their own womb whilst it incubates. Second, any law enacted that would force women to carry a child to term against their own will, would be an unconstitutional law. Preambles seven, twelve and fifteen, under legal rights in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, with the exception of the clause which suggests that ‘everybody’, a broad term, has the right to “life, liberty and the security of the person”, are principles confirming the supremacy of choice and protection against discrimination. Third, that a society which enslaves and forces women is less preferable to a society which frees women, by allowing them to make mistakes, including killing their unborn children during a medically recommended timeframe.
Therefore, to begin, it is one thing to convince women to choose life for their unborn, whenever possible, and another to force them to choose life against their will. Thus, the first question that needs to be asked is, what sort of legal rights does a mother have over the fetus? If we consider the fetus as an individual, then the answer to the question becomes apparent. A woman merely has the right to get pregnant, carry the child to term, give birth and raise the child. She can refuse to raise the child, but she cannot kill the child. That would be unconstitutional and considered a criminal act. However, is the life of the unborn child not dependant on the life of the mother? If the mother suffers, does the fetus also not suffer? Is there not a symbiotic relationship between the fetus and the womb? The answer to these questions is a resounding yes. Thus, considering this relationship, does the right to take or give life to her unborn not reside with the mother? On the other hand, killing a born child is, for obvious reasons, a serious crime. The gray moral dimension resides then on deciding whether or not the embryo is an individual, and thus protected against all malice that would threaten its existence, especially since it is voiceless and defenseless. I think this deliberation, whether the fetus is a person or not a person, can only be decided by science. However, for the sake of argument, when we assume that the fetus is a person entitled to the full protection that all conscious individuals get from the law, then we are faced with a moral quagmire. In such a situation, killing the fetus can be equated with murder and all applicable legal punishments would be exacted on the mother. She would be prevented from killing her unborn baby! But how would such prevention be enforced? What if the woman does not listen to reason or resign herself to fate against her will? Can we physically force women that have their minds made up to abort their child? And if we do force through law, wouldn’t that invalidate our most cherished constitutional principles? We don’t even do that to hardened criminals and murderers! We take away their freedom, but not their free will. We don’t prevent crimes by punishing crime before it is committed. Thus, regardless of the argument in favor of the child to be considered as an individual under full constitutional protection, a society in which that kind of legal and physical cruelty towards women is allowed, physical in the sense that giving birth is a painful and sometimes life threatening process, is a society that is barbaric, unethical, immoral and unconstitutional more than a society favoring the opposite
With the second point, the constitutionality of abortion and human rights, the moral distinctions get grayer still. For if the fetus, while still in the womb, is considered an individual and is awarded full protection against the mother whom would threaten its life and development, then the constitution would dictate for us to set out laws that would imprison, punish and treat mothers to be and willing to abort as murderers. However, if we do so, then we again break the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ‘ freedom of conscience and liberty clause. Also, the Charter does not mention anything about limiting choice for pregnant women, or forcing pregnant women to carry a child to term. Just because we can, however, lets imagine a Constitution which does in fact enshrine the sanctity of the unborn child into law, and protects its life with absolute punishment on those women foolish enough to kill it. First, assume we punish after the crime has been committed. Would this stop women from aborting their children? I think history has proven this to be false. Second, assume we prevent or intimidate through punishment? Would this again stop women from aborting their fetuses? I don’t think so. So the only way to effectively make sure that women carry a child to term is through physical force. The aim of many pro-lifers with which I have conversed seems to gravitate towards this later state of affairs. Most are unwilling to admit that they actually want to impose their standards of morality on women unwilling to carry a child to term. They hate abortion and more importantly they despise the women that decide to abort. A society in which women are forced physically by brute force or by the long arm of the law to relinquish control over their own bodies is a cruel and patriarchal society. Exactly the kind of society men of extreme religious zeal and conviction hope for. No, worse, pray for. I have noticed that, overwhelmingly, this proposition has been voiced mostly by men in conversation. I have also found very few women staunchly against abortion, and again those that I have found have always had some religious motivation behind their intentions. Either ways, our constitution does not prevent murder, it punishes murder. And if abortion is to be considered murder then millions of women that have already aborted one, two or three or perhaps even more children must be then considered murderers. And that would be a travesty, indeed a mockery of justice.
Finally, individuals need to understand that societal evolution, as Karl Marx put it, “cannot be achieved without feminine upheaval.” And that, “Social progress can be measured exactly by the social position of the fairer sex, the ugly ones included.” What does this mean? Does it mean that we let women do what they want? Absolutely not! But we do let women do what they want to their own bodies. And since the embryo is symbiotically tied to the body of the mother, to the womb, then it is not our place to interfere. Unfortunately, on the pro-life side of the question of abortion, the overwhelming consensus is that in fact there is a need for intervention from society to overrule the will of a woman over her body. When dealing with one’s own pregnant daughter, I have conversed with individuals willing to lock her up and physically force her not to get an abortion. Regrettably, conversations with such individuals never get past the corollary question, what will you do if your neighbor’s wife wants to get an abortion and no amount of convincing and logic will change her mind? Will you force her to carry the child against her will too? I never asked this question, but I would assume the extremists would proudly say “yes” to both. The other side of the argument, the pro-choice side, does not wish to impose any moral standards on women, regardless of circumstance, and acknowledges the primacy of choice. This side understands that forcing does not solve any problems, that threatening does not convince minds otherwise and that punishing does not provide any satisfaction. Life is indeed precious, but liberty reigns supreme. Those individuals that advance arguments against abortion also advance arguments against liberty. They despise liberty! They think of it as relativistic and morally weak. They hate freedom and embrace moral certainty. Moral certainty that is not certain at all, but a perverse and masochistic wish to enslave minds. I know all too well that making a case for the murder of children isn’t easy. But abortion is not murder. Thus, the pro-choice position is sound: Pro-lifers claim murder where none exists. They say choice is secondary to life, and that punishment or force should be used against women practicing their free will. To those that say such things, I ask: What is life without free will? What is a child without love? What is a mother without her womb?
In conclusion, this essay perhaps will confuse the reader more than it will prove the fundamental thesis proposed in the introductory paragraph. Does this essay answer questions such as: Will society ever recognize moral limits? What about the unborn children, the lost potential? Can women ever be tamed again, without forcing them to do things against their will? Do most women get abortions just because they can, or is it because they have valid reasons to? And if they don’t have valid reasons should they be forced? Do the Godly have a point? Etc. I think such questions are beyond my ability to answer. So to leave the reader off with a word of caution: Be wary of those that propose to impose their standards onto others! For most often they do so because they are insecure about themselves, and are usually inclined to impose them by force. Therefore, moral certainty and absolute righteousness have no place in a just and civilized Canadian society. Women will continue to make mistakes and will continue to rebel, for it is in their nature. They have right to do so. But then let society not take away what is most fundamental to their freedom, their right to reproduce or not to reproduce, their right to carry a child or not to carry a child and their right to dissent to forcefulness.
