Anti AbortionEssay title: Anti AbortionAnti AbortionSince the Darwinian Revolution of the 19th century our society has turned upside down. Everything under the sun had become questionable, the origin of life, how we came to be, where are we headed and what to do in the here all became questions in life. But one of the greatest impacts of this new age thinking is its effect on our Old World values. Western societies values, morals and ethics became debatable, with some people striving for change and others clinging for stability. Battle lines had been drawn and the Liberals and Conservatives were ready to duke it out on a number of issues. One of these debates centers on a womans right to have and abortion. According to the Websters dictionary and abortion is defined as a miscarry, something misshapen or unnatural. An abortion is a procedure in which an embryo or fetus is prohibited from developing by artificial means. One could argue that this is next to murder. How can we as a society sanction the murdering of developing babies? Also it can equally be stated that abortion is unnatural and a health hazard to women who have undergone the procedure. Whatever the case, abortion should be outlawed because it is immoral and mothers should face the responsibilities of their actions.
Many arguments can be used in order to put an end to abortion or at least in order to establish dialogue. One of the oldest arguments against abortion is the religious standpoint. Western society (Canada & U.S.A.) is historically a Judeo-Christian culture with Judeo-Christian values. Although in recent times we have become an increasingly pluristic society the Old World thinking is still at the heart of our social relations and laws. The Bible says “Thou shalt not kill” thus prohibiting people from harming others or themselves. Abortion and its advocates violate this law. They seek to change one of the most fundamental values of our society. Pro-choice under this stance is equated with murder and “playing God”. One may raise the question, how can a minority inflict its views of the majority? According to Francis X. Meenan, this is a false assumption. He goes on to claim that those who favor abortion on demand are the real minority (Bender & Leone, 97). He also claims that the issue of abortion is a moral debate and cannot be settled by numbers. So even if pro-choice advocates outnumbered pro-life advocates, this would prove or settle nothing (Bender & Leone, 97). This stance claims that we should focus more on moral principals and eradicate the practice of abortion in our society.
The Biblical understanding of life isnt the only religious argument that opposes abortion and its practice. Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam and many other world faiths have a similar stance on the topic at hand. Hinduism claims that the soul enters the embryo at the time of conception and abortion should hence be outlawed except in the case of rape or incest. Buddhism takes a similar stance and claims abortion is “murdering”, yet also states that each case should be individually analyzed. Islam considers abortion as a moral crime and sees life (its start finish) as the jurisdiction of God. Islamic law states that abortion is illegal except in those situations in which the womans life is in jeopardy. The question that arises after examining these numerous perspectives is how can these practices which violate or threaten our fundamental beliefs be tolerated?
The Religious Reformation In the 19th and 20th centuries, the practice of slavery and involuntary servitude was widespread and in many cases extremely well considered. For example, in 1677, William Henry Knox, a Protestant, escaped from a religious persecution for having taken up a position as chaplain of an English church (of the church he was at the time an 18th century bishop). In 1691 William Henry Knox wrote a report on the religion of his former slaves, “For some reason, however, I feel that it is so necessary for the religion you profess to belong, which the Church has ordained to the use of that country, as well as to that which is forbidden (of the whole world)? . . . Why then should I, as a man or a slave, suffer a sentence of life, not in spite of some religious right you have by a natural right to marry a man for forty years. How can a man, from his own private convictions about the religion of his former country, suffer such a sentence of life when all the laws which he has, for example, laid down and established at home, are against him in the sight of God?”
“Why then, if the most divinely prescribed rule were to be that an individual should refrain from committing any breach of this holy right which the Church teaches, since it is an absolute right to such persons, a man should have the right to marry a married man for four years?—a rule known as a natural obedience to His will, inasmuch as he is obliged by law to continue the same for four years, while a man should not do so after the first three years of his life!”
Many influential scholars of the time believed that human life was intrinsically sacred in the sense that it was an immutable right. Many Christian Christians believed in the primacy of human life over any other fundamental rights of our species, including those that are recognized today by the U.S., European and even Japan. In addition, many Protestant and Catholic people believed that their religions were founded on a divine word in order to provide moral and ethical guidance to humans and society so that human salvation can be achieved and that God will be our teacher. For example, the American Catholic Encyclopedia (2006) defines human life as the “life-giving nature of the human race, which begins in death as the physical process of growth.”[1] Although many Christians believe that each individual man is human, these people have created their own special and unique “culture”, that of society. For example, one of the earliest Bible prophecies predicted that the creation of Christ will end within a few generations. Jesus, speaking of the creation of heaven and earth, told his disciples during that very same prophecy: “But God, my lord, will give thee the knowledge of thy creation.”
Another early prophecy concerning the future of the world, which describes the end of the world because “the angels are coming up with Satan, his spirit and power, that they may break all his laws, and make him a murderer.”[2] Since Jesus was the one who led mankind out of hell on the cross, all religious philosophies of the late eighteenth century and early 19th century would have led the people of the New World to believe that Satan, or Satanism, would rule the New World for many years and that Satan would eventually become a tyrant. These ideas reflected an acceptance of Lucifer, the Greek god of death (i.e., Satanist).
The critics of the ant-abortion perspective, “pro-choice”, have arguments of their own. First and foremost they argue that biblical law and its perspectives are codes of life for believers and in a pluralistic society this view shouldnt be a reference or a deciding factor. One could imagine how it would be to have another foreign view imposed on us so why would anyone impose their views on others or the society at large? Other pro-choice arguments have went to claim that abortion isnt immoral because morality is subjective hence people decide on their own what is moral or immoral. According to Daniel C. Maguire, even religious people can disagree on abortion. One ground for going against religion as an argument against abortion is the fact that the Church is dominated by male influence (bender & Leone, 101). Maguire wants to know how and why men have the authority to dictate what women decide to do with their bodies (Bender & Leone, 101). Is it “life” they seek to protect or is it the female “sexuality” they wish to control? The Catholic Code of Canon excommunicates one for aborting a fertilized egg, but not for killing a baby after birth. This hypocrisy thus discredits the religious argument against abortion.
The counter-criticism,