ABORTION BANS IN RELIGION THREATEN WOMEN
The Church says that deliberately ending the life of an embryo in
the womb is a sin. It refers to abortion as the DIRECT killing
of the unborn.
The Church permits a womb or fallopian tube to be removed to save the mother
even though it entails the death of the baby inside. She says this is not murder
or abortion for it has to be done and is the only way. The death of the baby is
a side effect. This is called the law of double-effect which means we have to do
harm when it is for the greatest good and the harm is a side effect for it is
not intended because there is no choice.
Even if the Church is forced by moral sense to have such a law,
there is a marked lack of love for the child. If a baby is
going to suffer as the tube is taken, the Church does not care.
Euthanasia is banned even then.
Anyway, permission to remove the tube shows us something. The Church gives the following as a reason
for forbidding abortion: “Abortion even if ever acceptable might turn out to
have been unnecessary to save the mother’s life. So it is best to ban it.” This
is only an excuse when it allows the tubes and wombs removed with the babies
inside. The Church can't say aborting a baby to save the mother is doing a
certain evil instead of doing a less certain evil of causing the mother's death.
She cannot say that possible evils are better committed than sure evils for she
advocates the certain evil of killing the baby indirectly. The Church states
that this is not abortion for there is no choice but to kill the baby
indirectly. That this is folly is obvious from the fact that it is permitted to
take away the tube and thereby cut off the baby's life but not permitted to kill
the baby and then remove the tube. Moreover, if foetal life comes first as the
Church implies by her rancour towards women then it is best to let nature run
its course and kill the two of them if it wants to so indirect killing is still
abortion and freely meant to kill the baby. It is possible to be pregnant even
if the womb is taken away for the foetus can grow off other organs. It is no
wonder some think that the Church must ask that the foetus be frozen alive to
wait for the day when science can do something with it to give it a chance to be
born or ask that the foetus be implanted elsewhere in the mother or in another
woman by force if necessary when the Church permits the removal. Some feminists
have said that the Church would certainly rape women in the sense of forcibly
implanting babies in them.
If the baby's life comes before the mother's life when abortion is not allowed
it comes before it in double-effect too. Thus the baby's death would not be a
side effect for it is not morally necessary to kill the baby for the baby is all
that matters. It is killed indirectly but that it is still as good as killing
directly.
The law of double effect as used by the Catholic Church becomes lethal when an
omnipotent God is believed in. Suppose a fallopian tube with a baby inside needs
to be removed according to medical opinion to save the mother. Nobody knows for
sure if not having the operation will kill the baby and/or the mother.
Statistically, most in this situation will die. But when there is a God he might
change this and most will live. The women then should not be touched just in
case. Thus, the Church endorses an abuse of the law of double effect. The
babies' deaths it allows are not unavoidable. Moreover, taking away the babies
prevents God from showing the statistics reversing. Perhaps if the tube was left
inside, we would see a change in the statistics thanks to God and there would be
no need to remove them on statistical grounds again. When he reverses the
statistical trend more babies lives will be preserved and the indirect
termination of ectopic pregnancies will be forbidden. This thought alone
condemns the Church's teaching.
Abortion cannot be bad just because it hurts the foetus. The foetus will face
more pain than that if it lives.
Only if the foetus may have the need to live can killing it be evil. To have
this need it has to be able to understand what life is which simply means it has
to be conscious. It may not understand how it comes to be alive but it knows it
is aware so it understands what it is to be alive. It doesn't have the need so
abortion on demand would be right if we are sure it does not know.
The abortion of a foetus that has no consciousness is not murder for it is just
preventing a person from coming into existence. If this is evil then men should
be impregnating girls as soon as they start to ovulate.
The woman who brings a child into the world to suffer is a callous child abuser.
Her child will have the right to sue her.
Christian opposition to abortion has more to do with dislike of women and sheer
bigotry than anything else. The interference of Christians which is geared to
making abortion hard to obtain results only in late abortions. For them, early
or late abortion is bad. But the truth is, even if it is bad it is less bad in
the early stages. Then there is a lesser chance that the baby is a person.
The Catholic Church officially teaches that the war against abortion and
contraception are the same war. It is believed that a woman using contraception
will often choose abortion if the contraception fails. The Church is insinuating
that contraception leads to abortion. This aims to trick women into thinking
they are assisting in murder if they use contraceptives for it is not
necessarily true and contraception would have to necessarily lead to abortion to
be wrong like abortion supposedly is. It is true that the pill often causes a
very early abortion but there is a world of difference between this and having a
later abortion requiring surgery. That you would use the pill does not
necessarily mean that you would have the baby killed at a later stage. That is
why the Church's logic is fraudulent. It is wrong to say that contraception is
bad for it leads to abortion for it does not. Using condoms does not mean you
will use the pill. Using the pill does not mean you will have a later abortion
if the pill lets you down. If you do use the pill or have a later abortion the
reason is that you made a new decision that nothing made you make. There is no
link. The Church needs this emotionally stirring argument to put a veneer of
respectability and compassion on its crusade against birth-control. The woman
has all the trouble with pregnancy and the man does not. In a sense the man is
in the same position as a contracepting woman. It is clear then that the ban on
contraception and abortion in Catholicism really stems from a hatred of women.
It is pure sexism. It denies that women should have the freedom with sex that
men have. It seeks to punish women for having sex.
Today there are safe abortion pills, that can terminate an early pregnancy
without any need for surgery. This is a great development. Most women will feel
better about an abortion when it happens early enough. And it prevents the
turmoil and surgery that can arise from a later abortion. We all feel that those
who would make such pills illegal and condemn the taking of them are interfering
cranks. They may claim to believe that that embryos in a test tube are people
but they do not act as if they really do. All they are doing is scaring women
off using the abortion pill and making some of them leave it too long when the
embryo may indeed be a human person. This is particularly evil when the woman is
a rape or incest victim.
The Church says that a child is a gift from God. This means that the suffering
of having an unborn child is a gift from God too. To say that suffering is a
gift from God which you have to say if you believe in an all-powerful God who
lets suffering take place for a good reason is to discourage people a lot from
fighting suffering. We will not take orders from believers in God about whether
abortion should be legalised or forbidden.
Only .3 of professional abortions lead to medical complications. That is an
important thing for people to know. The book, Christianity is Not Great. The
pro-life people exaggerate the numbers who suffer from complications to deter
people from abortion. More women die from having babies than having those
abortions.
The Church will do a lot to stop abortions in poor countries but it will not do
much to stop the babies dying of starvation or malnutrition or disease after
they are born. Banning abortion gives men the right to procreate through rape or
through lying about contraception. The woman’s body belongs to men. The woman is
sentenced to a living death and to bondage and fear. Her life is not valuable
while the baby’s is. What the fight against abortion really is about is stopping
women from using their own judgment and being free. Women who campaign against
abortion are traitors to their sex and are conditioned by men and religion.
Anything is possible in human life. Therefore it is possible that abortion may
save the life of a woman who is suicidal and who wants rid of the baby. All
Catholics have to say to this is that the suicidal are NEVER helped by abortion.
They cannot know that! Are they psychic? It's just a dogmatic faith based
assumption. They are therefore willing to kill the women by their teaching. The
unborn baby makes them willing to kill for it in that underhand way. Whoever
refuses to consider each case on its own merits and prefers to make blanket
condemnations is not a true friend of women. Science works without religious
assumptions and is based on what the evidence says. Science will revise and
repudiate theories that are not properly verified. Science is free from
religious pressure. The religious attitude to women who need abortion to avoid
suicide is therefore unscientific.
Even we cannot legalise abortion on the basis of a threat of suicide, we know
that there would be circumstances in which it would be right. Proving it could
be the problem. We would be banning abortion because we can't get the needed
evidence that abortion will avert suicide. We are not fortune-tellers. But
religion just doesn't care even about that. Even if the evidence was clearcut it
would still oppose the legalisation.
The pro-life in Ireland have tried to make out that Savita Halappanavar's death
was not the fault of Catholic pro-life policy and its meddling with legislation.
She was refused a termination of pregnancy to save her life. She was told it was
a Catholic country. Of course the pro-life have tried to manipulate people to
think she was not told that. They then virtually accuse her devastated husband
of being a liar. But nobody denies that she was refused a termination because
the foetus had a heartbeat.
The pro-life people will not stand for Ireland having even a strictly limited
abortion law. They prefer to drive women abroad to nations that provide abortion
on demand even at later stages than Ireland would ever countenance. Is it not
better that if abortion is coming in and is wrong, to have the law made up in
such a way that the woman will have a safe early abortion in Ireland? Even if
abortion is wrong, then surely it is monstrous to argue that a foetus of 6 weeks
has as much a right to life as one of 24 weeks?
Finally, Catholicism now says that life starting at conception is a matter of science not religion. So much for its claim that God owns science! So much for its claim that science and religion fulfil each other!