To fully understand the magnitude of the abortion debate, we must first look at it's history leading up to our modern times. The social discourse regarding abortion have been linked historically to issues involving family planning, state population control, religious and moral ideology and human rights. In ancient times, the practice of allowing or disallowing pregnancy terminations rested on a number of issues, including population and rape. Sometimes abortion was recommended in cases involving health complications or emotional immaturity for women.
It wasn't until the middle of the twelfth century that the moral implication of abortion procedure began to take root in social thinking. In 1140, the monk John Gratian completed the Concordia Discordantium Canonum which became the first authoritative collection of canon law accepted by the Vatican. In accordance with ancient scholars, it concluded that the moral crime of early abortion was not equivalent to that of homicide. The next century saw Pope Innocent III declare that when "quickening" has occurred, then abortion was homicide. As the centuries passed by, denunciations against abortion increased, including accusations involving witchcraft and the occult, that in 1588, Pope Sixtus V, aligned church policy with St. Thomas Aquinas' belief that abortion was a sin against God and a crime against nature.
The political response to the religious outrage against abortion came some 200 years later, when the Parliament of England, in 1803 enacted the Malicious Shooting and Stabbing Act, making abortion after quickening a capital crime. This law was further reinforced some 60 years later in 1861 when Parliament passed the Offences Against The Person Act, outlawing abortion altogether. In 1869, Pope Pius IX declared that abortion under any circumstance is a mortal sin and anyone who in any way participates in the act excommunicated him/herself. The same year saw the Parliament of Canada unify criminal laws in all provinces banning abortion.
In the United States, the passage of the Comstock Law of 1873 made it a crime to sell, distribute or own any abortion-related product and illegal to publish information on how to obtain them. By the early 1900s, through the efforts of legislators and the American Medical Association, abortion was effectively outlawed throughout the United States.
But the progressive strides taken toward the advancement of greater individual and social freedoms by the mid to late 20th century created an easing of people's attitudes toward abortion. Coupled with the declining influence of the church and religion on social policy caused a societal rethink on matters concerning abortion and human reproduction. With more and more women joining the workplace, it became increasingly obvious that due to economic necessities, the role of women in society should be redefined. And with the birth of the modern feminist movement and the clamour for increased independence among women, the social structure was forever changed.
The aftermath of Roe v. Wade in 1973, and the resulting polemical discussion on abortion have created a kind of historical battlefield among ideological combatants on both sides of the argument. The forward-looking "Pro-Choice" movement, which I affiliate myself with, looks to safeguard not just women's emancipation rights but general individual freedoms that have taken centuries to achieve while engaging various religious and political interests in the fight for people's minds. The "Pro-Life" movement, a collection of religious and social organizations have spearheaded the fight against abortion rights and by default or ideological principle, aim to take back the social progress that have been made in the last 50 years. Aided by politicians on both sides of the aisle, the two movements have waged a war of principle with two very different agendas as a battle cry. The legal argument for pro-choice, backed by the language of the fundamental law, the moral argument for pro-life, with the long historical tradition of religious philosophy on it's side.
And central to this discussion is the question that has been centrifuge of this heated debate. "Where does life begin ?"
Last spring, I became engaged in an open-ended discussion (via the Facebook message board) with a Facebook friend, Vancouver pro-rights activist Meghan Cleary. The topic was a simple question. "Do we consider the fetus as life ?" My answer was no. Meg's answer, to my surprise was yes. Her definition was this: "A human fetus is life potential in embryonic form". The same way we look at bacteria as a life form, therefore a fetus is also a life form. After a slew of vehement protestations coming from me, Ms. Cleary responded that "there are people in Pro-Choice who are hesitant to concede the moral high ground to the other side, so as to hide this moral insecurity they deny this indisputable biological fact". Which generally meant that I was in denial.
So what does this all mean ? Do I cede the moral and ethical ground to a pro-lifer ? And stick to the legal status of abortion as my only argument ?
Meg's answer was no. Besides mentioning the competitive rights argument which legally holds the woman's interest ahead of the fetus in International Law regarding Reproductive Rights, she had this to say:
"Since we are all conceived, we do NOT have the Right of Choice with regards to our existence. And since we renounce our right of first choice, we must defer to the interest of our maternal host".
To which I concurred. This is the ethical argument for a woman's right to obtain an abortion if she so chooses. A fetus in the womb is in the exclusive domain of the owner of the womb. The woman. Legally, ethically and morally. And the fundamental law dictates protection, not on existential right but on individual right. And the woman as an individual is sovereign in the eyes of the law.
By legal definition in Canada and the United States, the right to an abortion is a fundamental right. And by extension and due to biological and natural reality, abortion is solely a woman's decision. Both from an ethical and moral standpoint.
Thank you, Meg.
No comments:
Post a Comment