Is Abortion a Moral Choice

Moral Choice Questions on Abortion
The question of whether one has a moral choice to choose to have an abortion is one that has long been part of American history. Since the latter half of the 20th century, however, it has become more prominent, especially with the ruling in Roe v. Wade. The sides of the issue stem from two opposing views of the matter. On the one side is the concept that life is precious and should not be terminated in the womb intentionally for whatever reason. On the other side is the concept that a woman’s body is her own and no one has a right to tell her what to do with it. This latter point is muddied by the argument that while her body may be her own, she has a responsibility to carry the body growing inside her womb to term. However, the opposing argument to this claim is that the body growing inside her womb should not be considered as such until it has reached a certain point in development and prior to that point, the woman has the right to terminate its development if she so chooses to do so.
Which stance is the moral one? The most moral stance is to argue that life is precious and should be cared for. After all, the Hippocratic Oath that doctors take is to look after the lives that are in their care. A doctor who terminates a pregnancy does seem to violate this oath as he is ending the growing life in the womb. It is not like the growing life in the womb might turn out, surprise, to be a baby: so saying that the child who is developing is not really a child yet if not developed to a certain point comes across as superficial and disingenuous. The baby will obviously come and the doctor, instead of protecting life and nurturing it, voluntarily chooses to help end it. This appears to contradict his oath as a doctor and could be viewed as immoral.
The opposing argument, on the other hand, appears to have more to do with a political perspective than it does with morality. The perspective that underlines the “pro choice” position is that a woman’s body is her own and she has a right to do with it what she likes. This focus on rights instead of the question of what is moral is what makes the pro-choice perspective a political rather than a moral one. It stems from the feminist movement of the 1970s which advocated for independence for women and for equality. The movement supported the verdict of Roe v. Wade and in fact one of the leaders of the movement, Gloria Steinem, the founder of Ms. Magazine, wrote about she herself had an abortion and how she wanted other women to celebrate that fact and to not be ashamed of their own abortions. This seems to be strangely perverse, for womankind has the distinct privilege of being able to carry a child—which is something that men cannot do. To argue for equality among the sexes then is to really go against nature, which is what makes it immoral. To call for rights to protect one’s immorality and to call for equality when the sexes are not equal by nature is to make a moral issue into a political one, and that is what has happened with the abortion issue.
Thus, if those who have made a moral issue into a political issue then want to act as though their political stance is a moral stance, the question must be asked what exactly they are basing the morality of their stance upon. If they are basing it on this question of rights, it must be pointed out that rights are not morals—they are political assertions. The Declaration of Independence was, for example, a political document—not a moral one. The Rights of Man by Paine and the Rights of Woman by Wollstonecraft were political documents, not moral ones. The ethical position is not on the side of those who choose to have abortions or who choose to advocate for abortion as though the killing of innocent life were somehow moral because it was the will of a woman.
Woman’s will is not the measure of morality. Just because a woman chooses to do something does not make it moral simply because that is what she wants—yet that is the very basic argument that pro-choice supporters make. They say that what makes their position the moral choice is that the woman has a right to do what she wants with her own body. Yet, if the same woman were to attempt suicide, she would be prevented from doing so by law because suicide is deemed immoral and unlawful. A doctor would not be permitted to assist in her suicide because it would be deemed immoral and unlawful. Yet, the same doctor may assist her in killing the life growing in her womb because for some odd dissembling of reason the life is not actually considered a life until it has reached an arbitrary point in development.
This twisted thinking is what makes the debate so nonsensical at root. Either one accepts that one has a moral responsibility in the matter or one rejects one’s moral responsibility. To argue that one’s politics are the source of one’s morals is to put the cart before the horse. One’s politics represent one’s morals, and in the case of those who choose abortion, it is evident that one is choosing to be immoral and the politics that front this immorality are deemed the new morals or ethics. This is a perversion of reason and should not be accepted as an articulate position of morality. It is not an expression of a moral perspective but rather of a perspective of willfulness that does not want to conform to the morality that is evident in all of nature. Politics should conform with morality in order to be effective—but the politics of abortion rights advocates twist the knife into nature.