Integrity – principled consistency, is a cherished
value but it has a high price tag.
Some situations come to test the moral positions of
people. A most unwanted pregnancy in a raped and psychologically shattered young
teenage girl will test the conviction of many who consider abortion of the
fetus at all stages to be murder.
In Nigeria unlike the United States, many do not have
firm committed positions on abortion. So when the morality of abortion is
thrown up many cling to vacuous dogmatism or sanctimoniousness and others at
the other extreme embrace ill digested moral permissiveness or cynicism.
Since Nigeria is supposedly a very religious society,
majority will easily claim identification with the pro life stance by mouthing
the heinousness of abortion but would not hesitate to have a quick effortless
recourse to abortion when faced with an unwanted pregnancy challenge. The truth
is that many seemingly enlightened people all over the world adopt moral
positions they have never cared to interrogate and cannot rationally defend.
The children, aged between 14 and 17.
And many will proudly announce their identification
with groups whose core tenets they cannot abide by. Some others are
enthusiastic apostles of moral causes their lives do not espouse.
The morality of abortion is a very controversial and
thorny issue. And at the heart of this controversy is the question of the moral
status of the fetus and personal autonomy or right of self determination of the
mother. Is the fetus a person?
Or is the fetus potentially a person? Does the woman’s
right to plan her life include a right to choose when to be a mother and when
not to be saddled with maternal responsibilities? Can her right to self
determination trump fetal rights in some circumstances? Can the society
subrogate her right to self determination to the fetus’ right to life at all
times? If the pregnancy constitutes a threat to the life of the mother can the
fetus be sacrificed?
The conservative pro life stance which is perhaps best
projected and explicated by the Catholic Church is that personhood is acquired
at conception. So the zygote has sanctity of life , a sacred inviolable right
to live like all other persons.
The destruction of any human life is murder . This
stance deems any intervention directly aimed at destroying the fetus to be
within the moral proximity of murder. Abortion is only permitted if it is an
unintended consequence of an intervention primarily aimed at saving the
mother’s life. The destruction of the fetus must never be an end in itself. The
mother’s right to self determination is inferior to the fetus’ right to life.
The implication of the pro -life stance is that a
teenage unwanted pregnancy , or any other pregnancy , however inconvenient
cannot justify abortion. It doesn’t matter that a frail teenager cannot
withstand the rigours of pregnancy. Pregnancy resulting from rape or incest
cannot be terminated. This stance excludes all contraceptives that work by
intervening in the process of reproduction after conception. So in effect
IUCDs, commonly used by women post child bearing are ruled out .
“Morning after” pills used to prevent implantation by
rape victims are not justified. Scientific procedures that lead to deliberate
,even if unavoidable , wastage of embryos are precluded. Therefore IVF
procedures and stem cell researches are forbidden. And it wouldn’t matter that
a couple can remain infinitely childless or that a chronically ill crippled
child can find a new life from stem cells donated by a sibling.
The pro choice stance is founded mainly on the right
to self determination of the mother as host of the non independent fetus .
Pro choice proponents argue that the fetus has only
potential personhood at the best . Mainstream pro choice arguments claim the
fetus has no actual personal autonomy , no consciousness , no thoughts and no
plans. The right of the fetus to life cannot then , on this view, approximate
that of a person and cannot supercede the rights of the mother to plan her
life.
The mainstream feminists’ position now is largely pro
choice because it is centered on the enhancement of personal autonomy of women
and promotion of equality between sexes . Women should be free to decide when
to be mothers. Child bearing they say is too emotional , too tasking to be
foisted on the unwilling.
The implication of the prolife argument’s insistence
on the fetus’ lack of personhood is that a patient in a permanent vegetative
state perhaps has diminished right to life? Or that a neonate doesn’t have same
right to life as an adult because it is dependent and lacks full autonomy?
These inferences contradict societal mores.
It is perhaps morally counterintuitive to allow
unrestrained freedom to abort fetuses at all gestational ages. Both pro life
and pro choice stances attach heavy moral weight to abortion. Many liberal
jurisdictions emphasize this moral concern by restricting access to abortion to
early stages of pregnancy when the fetus cannot survive on the outside.
Before 22/24 weeks in the developed world. Does our
current practice then assume that all fetuses do not have same moral status? In
practice it would appear so.
Roe vs Wade gave women literal freedom to abort in the
US in the first trimester. The 1967 abortion act in the UK allows doctors to
decide abortion if continuation of pregnancy constitutes more risk than
discontinuation. This has been liberally applied by doctors to allow abortion
on request before 24 weeks in England.
In Nigeria, abortion is a crime except if performed to
save a mother at risk.. A review of our laws on abortion is long over due. A
relaxation of the legal strictures will help proper health service delivery to
those in need. But it is doubtful that our moralistic society can take any
steps that can be read as steps towards encouragement of moral laxity.
So Criminalization of abortion in early pregnancy will
continue to drive our girls into the hands of quacks- patent medicine dealers
who perform the majority of illegal black market abortions in Nigeria
Regardless of the moral status of the fetus, abortion
should not be a flimsy engagement. It has very serious moral and medical
significance. The society and its citizens must understand clearly their
positions on abortions and the implications of their stances.
If abortion approximates murder then rape victims can
only pray that pregnancy does not result. While they will receive psychological
care and medical help to prevent conception otherwise they will have to bear
the children of the rapists .
To suggest that abortion can be extended to such
victims is to say that the fetus does not have right to life. The society must
understand these implications
Does consensual sex carry a responsibility that
diminishes the right of the woman to self determination in the event of a
pregnancy? Many say people must accept even the unforeseen or unintended
consequences of their actions.
If we allow such a moral responsibility for consensual
sex, what about rape? Why shouldn’t a rape victim be allowed the freedom to
accept or reject a violent imposition even if that results in the death of a
person or a potential person?
Rape is a grave crime. It is a despicable violation of
personal integrity and a grievous assault on human dignity. In many
jurisdictions it attracts the same criminal penalties as murder. If the crime
of rape is universally considered as extremely gross, the impact of pregnancy
resulting from rape must be an egregious aggravation of that enormity. If
women’s physical and psychological framework is shredded by rapists, then can
anyone imagine the interminable horror of carrying a child from such violence .
Rape is unfortunately very common now in our society.
And its worse that abductions are rife here also.
If the status of the fetus is that of a person why is
it that nature wastes millions of such ‘persons’ in the natural reproductive
processes? If every embryo must be accorded full human dignity why does nature
treat embryos with much less than human dignity? Why is the body programmed to
reject and discard malformed fetuses sometimes. Are such malformed fetuses of a
different moral status than fully formed ones? We can’t ask God questions.
Why would the life of a 12 year old school girl raped
by his father’s lecherous driver be further complicated by the life long
emotional and physical trauma of being an unprepared child mother of an
unwanted child? Some will say that terrible evil happens to innocent children
everyday.
Though theodicies make sense , let’s leave them aside
for now because the enormity of this particular evil can be mitigated . The
impact of this evil can be greatly alleviated by a termination of any resulting
pregnancy. How many would fail to relieve a teenage daughter of a pregnancy
forced on her by a rapist? I know many whose stance on gay rights changed when
their children became gays. I do not support gays rights though.
Who would let his wife carry to term a pregnancy
foisted on her by a boko haram lunatic in the unlikely and most unfortunate
event that she is abducted by the group? Christianity’s ultimate answer is that
challenges help to mould the soul and that since life here on earth is
infinitesimal compared to life hereafter , no such evil on the long run is
significant. I agree. I am a Christian. And I wish we could conduct all other
affairs with such understanding but unfortunately we often don’t.
Some conservative and christian groups , however ,
argue that abortion does not help a rape victim but further victimizes her.
They prescribe psychological and medical help but would encourage her to accept
the pregnancy if it cannot be prevented.
They insist that the virtue of being a mother would
soothe her trauma and that the sin of abortion even in such a circumstance
would only further dent her troubled soul. And that in any case retribution
must be for the rapist and not for an innocent fetus whose life is scared.
Bible says do not kill. But can that be interpreted to
preclude IVF for infertile couples? Perhaps. Are IUCD users serial murderers?
We must soberly reflect on our moral positions .
About Unknown
0 comments:
Post a Comment