Abortion as a Rights vs Duty Issue

Why Abortion Should be Abolished

Introduction

Abortion is legalized infanticide. It is the legal practice of murdering a child growing in the mother’s womb. It has been justified on the grounds that a woman has a right to choose whether she wants to nurture the life that has been conceived inside her. The issue is debated because it is controversial; however, the two sides of the debate do not see the issue of abortion in the same terms. Those who are pro-abortion (pro-choice) tend to frame the issue in terms of rights, whereas those who are pro-life (anti-abortion) tend to frame the issue in terms of duty. Some pro-choice advocates also seek to justify their position by referring to matters of health and safety, arguing that if abortion would abolished, women would be using coat hangers (unhealthy) to kill their children in the womb—so at least abortion clinics offer a safe and secure environment. The argument, however, is inherently faulty: killing a child is immoral—murder is wrong; and, besides, if the mother does not want the child she could always give it up for adoption, as there are many families out there who want to adopt babies. So it is not as if there are no alternatives to abortion, because there certainly are. It is not a question of legalized abortion or babies in a back alley with coat hangers. It is a question of which is the correct way to look at the issue—as one of rights or as one of duty. This paper will explain that abortion has to be looked at from the ethical perspective of duty because every mother has a duty—just as every father has a duty, and that duty is not dissolved just because someone says one has a right to deny it.

The Facts

Millions of babies are killed each year from legalized abortion around the world. In the US, that number easily totals hundreds of thousands. Since 1973, when Roe v. Wade led to the legalization of abortion in America, more than 62 million babies have been aborted in the US (Christian Life Resources). That is a staggering number—far more than the number of dead from COVID, for which nations around the world went into emergency lockdowns to preserve life. Yet these same nations around the world legally permit infanticide—the killing of babies in the womb, which is the one place in the world they should be safest and free from harm. If COVID prompted such a response from governments, particularly in the US, then why is it that abortion, which is obviously a far greater problem if one is simply going by death tolls (the number dead), is permitted by law? Is it that one does not choose to get COVID—but one can choose whether or not to maintain life in one’s womb once it has been conceived? This notion of choice is the only way to explain the apparent contradiction in modern culture: a world will go into total lockdown to present the deaths of some; yet it does nothing to prevent the deaths of hundreds of thousands each year right out in the open. It makes no sense unless one is looking at it from the perspective of the woman’s right to choose.

But is this “right to choose” the correct way to frame the issue? Certainly one has rights, especially in America. One has the right to bear arms; one has the right to a fair trial; one has the right to assemble. It is only since 1973 that a woman has had the right to kill an unborn child. Prior to 1973, this was not a right but a crime, because abortion was viewed not only as immoral but also as a danger to society. It was viewed as immoral because it went so against the grain of what it means to be a woman and a mother: women are unique in that they carry new life within them—the regeneration of society cannot come but through the womb of the woman; thus, there was always a great respect for life and the woman’s role in bearing life; to violate that respect was seen as a grave offense. It was seen as a danger to society because it undermined the very basis of society, which is the progeneration of new life.

Yet the 1970s saw the advance of the second wave of feminism, which got going in the 1960s under the leadership of women like Betty Friedan, who preached for a women’s liberation movement with her book The Feminine Mystique (Cavanaugh). The second wave of feminism aimed at the total overthrow of traditional gender norms—and Roe v. Wade played a major part in that overthrow. In the 1970s, the view of a woman as a protector and nurturer of new life was challenged by the feminist movement, who won a major victory in Roe v. Wade. The courts now said that women had a choice to decide whether they wanted to be a nurturer of life or a destroyer of life. Previously, it had been taken for granted that morally speaking a woman ought to nurture life. The second wave of feminism now promoted a new morality based on woman’s liberation from traditional systems of ethics. Ethical egoism is what would replace the traditions of duty ethics and virtue ethics.

Ethical Perspectives

Ethical egoism is the idea that the ends justify the means: if a person feels that a course of action will benefit himself the most, then it is moral, according to ethical egoism. It is widely regarded as the ethical framework of self-centeredness—the exact opposite of the ethics of deontology and the classical system of virtue ethics (Seven Pillars Institute). Since the 1970s, selfishness has come to dominate the national culture, as millions of unborn children have been murdered all thanks to the legalization of abortion.

How should one view abortion? It is best viewed from the standpoint of duty. After all, a father is still seen as having a duty to a child once it is born—even if he is not in the picture. Fathers must pay child support, because their duty is to provide for and protect the young life once it is born. No one disputes that. Why is it then that the mother’s duty to protect and support the life before it is born is viewed differently? If the mother has a right to kill the child before it is born, should it not logically follow that the father has the right to abandon the child after it is born? The fact is that duty ethics matters because morally speaking, a mother and a father both bear responsibility for nurturing and providing for new life when it is conceived.

The women’s movement in the 1960s and 1970s changed the nature of the debate by reframing it as a matter of choice and rights. The immorality of abortion was dismissed by them. Yet their dismissal of this fundamental issue of duty has not altered the reality. A mother has a duty to nurture life once it is conceived, just as the father has a duty to sustain life once it is delivered. These are fundamental laws of natural morality. They are universal. But since the 1970s they have been despised by a modern culture bent on its own self-destruction through self-centeredness and self-worship.

In recent years, however, there has been some political push-back, with the advance of the Heartbeat bill in states where local government is trying to address the controversy of Roe v. Wade head-on. The Heartbeat bill is meant to address abortion by limiting the window or time frame that women have to get one. It is not meant to be a total repeal of Roe v. Wade, but some see it at least as a good start.

Heartbeat Bill

The Heartbeat bill is a bill that has been proposed in states like Florida and Ohio; it would essentially roll back Roe v. Wade by making it illegal for a woman to have a surgical abortion after a heartbeat has been detected in the child—which means anywhere from three to six weeks after conception (Rogers). The idea of the Heartbeat bill is that it would prevent a great percentage of abortions in the US because it would be illegal for a woman to obtain one, 6 weeks from conception. However, there are pros and cons to the Heartbeat bill, and both sides of the debate have their issues with it.

Pros

The pros of the Heartbeat bill from the standpoint of the pro-life side are that it restricts the window of opportunity for getting an abortion. A woman who wants one would have to act quickly after conception, because once a heartbeat can be detected (which normally occurs by week 6), the woman would not be able to obtain a legal abortion (Totten). This would cut down on at least half of all abortions in the US. Hundreds of thousands of lives could be saved each year. For a nation so concerned about saving life that it will lock people down and protect them from COVID, this sounds like a great pro.

Cons

The cons of the bill are that it does not do enough to totally eradicate Roe v. Wade. Rogers argues that the bill is not really pro-life but rather is pro-abortion because it still allows that window of opportunity and in all likelihood abortion rights advocates would find ways to get around it anywhere so that the law never really has any teeth and is never enforced. What Rogers argues for is a total repeal or dismissal of Roe v. Wade on a states’ rights position. That means states have a right to decide what is legal for themselves if it is not in the Constitution. In fact, states have already done this with marijuana laws—so why not with abortion laws? Rogers has a good point here from the pro-life side of the issue: states should not adopt a half-way measure, even if it does seem to be a good step in the right direction. They should totally reject Roe v. Wade and the “right” of anyone to murder a baby at any point in time.

Where Things Stand

Where things stand is that the US is divided between those who see abortion as a right and those who see it as immoral. That is a problem of perspective, of values, of culture and of ethics. It is a problem that cannot be solved overnight. However, to approach this issue one has to have a sense of justice and understanding.

Today, people are so wrapped up in themselves that they do not want to think much about how their ideas have consequences. They do not want to think that there are repercussions to political correctness. Today, it is politically correct to espouse the doctrines of feminism as though it were good that women could abandon the traditional norms of nurturing and protecting young life in pursuit of some other self-centered plan and purpose. The reality of life is this: no one would be alive today if it were not for some mother somewhere sacrificing herself, her time, her energy, and her life so that a child could be brought into the world. Everyone alive today has a mother to thank for that sacrifice. She did her duty. She did not reject it by standing on an absurd notion of rights.