My thoughts on abortion and law were stirred when someone from the netalive forum a couple of years ago brought up the question of whether or not law and morality should overlap.  The guy claimed that law was "far more about giving structure to society in order to enable it to function smoothly and far less about any shared moral values."  Naturally, my thoughts immediately turned to abortion because i personally believed in the immoral nature of abortion and yet also believed abortion should be legalized.  Below are excerpts from some of these thoughts i posted in netalive.org.

 

I agree with the idea that personal moralities should not interefere in the crafting of public laws and polices.  For example, I hate the fact that the Catholic Church is still blocking the Philippine government from coming up with population policies to decrease population growth through artificial means.  This is a secular republic, not a Catholic state.  I'm not Catholic, lots of people in the Philippine are not Catholic, and yet we have to suffer through the consequences of anti-contraception policies.  this overpopulation is causing poverty, creating an economy that cannot support its own population and thus leading to demoralization and our own diaspora.  i don't want this consequence, and yet the cause is the morality of the Catholic religious who are powerful enough to affect public policy.  So this is a classic example of why I feel law and morality should not mix. 

But this is one issue; abortion is totally different. 

My wife's sister who worked for a women's organization was baiting me one time about abortion. Knowing that i was an evangelical, she thought i supported the political maneuverings of pro-life movements. At the time, though, I didn't. Personally, i was anti-abortion. This is because my morality told me that life was sacred and that the fetus had life. Fine. But laws define limits for everyone--including people who do not share my morality. It would be unfair to impose on them a piece of legislation based on a moral system that not everyone shared. The only thing that everyone in the state shares is--correct me if i'm wrong--the constitution. Laws cannot be ratified that contradict the constitution. It seems to me like the constitution establishes the mores accepted by everyone during the formation of the state, perhaps the nearest thing to a shared morality.

For the longest time, i was very comfortable with this stand: personally--pro-life, politically--pro-choice. However, i'm not so comfortable with this anymore after a friend told me off.  she thought i was being a hypocrite. She said this was exactly the mistake of german christians during the time of hitler--as individuals, they probably thought genocide was wrong, but they didn't do anything politically to fight the persecution of jews.  In the same way, i personally thought abortion was wrong but didn't want anything legislated so people could be forced to stop doing it.

How do we solve this dilemma? If we base law on our morality, we are in danger of persecuting the marginalized who do not share our morality; but if we do not assert our morality, we are in danger of allowing what may be truly evil deeds to happen. The tricky part of course is determining what "evil" is. The morality of abortion is still very debatable presently, but it is the general consensus now that hitler's genocide was wrong. Slavery was considered moral for a very long time, but it is considered immoral and evil now. Is abortion going to be considered truly evil by everyone two-hundred years from now? It seems defining "wrong" or "evil" is really difficult and perhaps even impossible during certain historical moments. But it doesn't change the wrongness of the action or inaction of that generation when future generations from a more objective perspective later judge them. But this is a gordian knot--for after all, we do not and cannot have the perspective of future generations and can act only on the basis of what we presently can or cannot see.

For the present, though, while I stand with women's groups on the issue of contraception, I have to stand against them on the issue of abortion, and i'll be damned if I ever end up supporting legislation for abortion.  I recognize that freedom of choice is important. That is why i hope people would choose to be resposible in the expression of their sexuality and use contraceptives. However, when i try to weigh the importance of this freedom against the sanctity of the life of the unborn, i have to say that the latter should take priority. I really do think this is no less than killing.

I'm not out to judge people. Even my mother had an abortion because we were dirt poor. I just think this is an unjustifiable act. If i look at this from a bigger perspective--take away gender conflicts, take away the quality of life issue, what do we have left? The termination of life. And this is pretty serious stuff. Never mind that i'm christian and am therefore biased. One doesn't have to be christian to respect the sanctity of life. In fact, christian George W. Bush does not respect the sanctity of life and started two wars already.

I am troubled by the fact that human law can say that abortion is okay. In some countries, it is even funded by the government in the form of subsidized abortion clinics--out of taxpayers' money, not all of whom believe in abortion. People who may be traumatized by childbirth because they have been raped or people who could die because of childbirth are exceptions--in the same way that people who kill in self-defense are absolved of murder. But i think they should be the exception, not the rule.

Why is there a dichotomy between pro-choice and pro-life? I am pro-choice. As far as i'm concerned, people should have the choice--nay, the responsibility--to choose their contraceptives and be responsible sexual beings. But when you bring a new life into the equation, a being normally disregarded and treated as "wastage" with no say over his/her own life, i think that changes things. And this is where i turn pro-life. I don't think this is a moral option. And again--i believe you don't have to be religious to believe in pursuing what is good or moral. Ultimately, the heart of the issue is the life of the unborn child, not women's choice.

I'm very troubled by the fact that societies can legalize and even encourage abortion like it's a good thing. Some women are made to feel good by pro-choice people and they say things like, "i've finally decided to take control of my life." What about the unborn child's life? And where was this "taking control" of your life when you were out having unprotected sex?  It is sad that the catholic church is anti-contraceptive. But never mind that. We don't need the catholic church to tell us what to do. In fact, i am speaking now not as a christian but as a concerned human being who believes that it is our responsibility to pursue what is good, protect human rights, and work against evil and injustice.

I believe in justice. I believe in overthrowing oppression. I believe in protecting the weak and innocent. So where is the justice in killing a non-aggressive being that poses no life threat to anyone? Why are fetuses allowed to be oppressed and treated as non-human, non-life? Why should the law not protect innocent life?

When we talk of public policy, we have to choose what is best, consider the consequences. But with "consequences," i assume most women's groups would be talking about the mother. Again, the unborn is left out of the equation. I'm weighing the consequence of the inconvenience created in the life of the mother against the consequence of the termination of a human life. Like i said, i'm not out to condemn and i'm not condemning my mother who had an abortion ten years ago. But sometimes i think, what if that fetus had been me? There were times in the past when, overcome by depression, I did want to commit suicide; but sometimes i really enjoyed life too. Whether or not i eventually reject the gift of life, i'd want it to be my choice, not someone else's.  No solution can be perfect in an ugly situation like an unwanted pregnancy, but i'm really bothered by the killing.  Is putting the baby up for adoption not an option?

I'm not a screaming anti-abortionist calling people murderers here. But how else can i communicate that i really think this is murder and it must be prevented?

Some people define morality as something determined by society according to what is best for it. Well, hitler determined that genocide was what was best for his society in order to forge his Third Reich and many people agreed with him. But we still say genocide is not moral. Or at least not good. Because what we have in genocide is a group of people who have the power deciding "what is good for them" with no concern about what is good for another group of people who are powerless to stop them. I think the unborn here is being oppressed, their rights curtailed or not even recognized, and law in many countries, is not on their side. I just don't think this is part of what makes a good society, and I don't think this should be part of the agenda of women's groups in the Philippines.

Among many intellectuals, supporting "conservative" and "religious stands" is anti-intellectual. I reject this.  I reject that people need to accept a God in order to recognize or promote a universal definition of good and evil based on how we treat our fellow beings. I think interpretations may vary across cultures, but most religions and cultures do have their version of The Golden Rule. Law, in most cases, is there to facilitate social processes effeciently.  But there is more to society than choosing what is efficient for the majority or the powerful at the cost of the minority or powerless. i don't want a society where effeciency is more important that human lives, human freedom, or human choice.  Abortion, as the band Breed used to sing, is just "killing for convenience."