Abortion as a Test Case: Where Individual Rights and Societal Responsibilities Collide

Edward J. Dodson

[An unpublished essay written in 1995]


Of all the societal issues we debate and struggle with, that of abortion -- and whether this act is consistent with a women's right to control of her own body or is by definition murder -- is one least reconcilable by our instinctive moral sense of right and wrong. To understand where we are in our thinking about abortion, however, we must first look at where we came from.

Our society faces the peculiar challenge of trying to rationalize the diversity of our citizenry against existing socio-political arrangements and institutions, the origins of which arose out of the adaptation of European values to the experience of broad individual freedom in North America. The Church rather than the State was in the first century and a half of settlement a far more powerful influence on individual behavior. By virtue of the beliefs held by our nation's Founding Fathers and Framers of the Constitution, Lockeian principles of individualism were combined with the doctrines of Protestantism to guide in the creation of our system of law. Theoretically, all rights not specifically delegated or assigned to government remained with the individual. Moreover, under the principle that manmade law in order to be just must be consistent with moral law (i.e., god's law) there were certain specific rights not even the unanimous consent of the citizenry could alienate.

From the very beginning of the conventions by which the government of our society was established, adherence to the principles of justice were compromised by the combination of vested interest and expediency. The socio-political philosophy found in the writings of Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, James Madison and (most completely) Thomas Paine called out for the protection of human rights by a democratically-elected government limited in power and subjected to frequent elections. Paine, more than the others, fought to make equality of opportunity a reality but did so only after leaving North America and becoming absorbed by the French Revolution. The society he left behind was engaged in an uphill struggle against a deeply-rooted belief system that sanctioned moral and cultural relativism above reason and principles of justice. In an important break with the past, they succeeded in denying any particular religion the position of being State sanctioned. They failed -- and subsequent generations have failed -- to complete the separation of Church and State by removing the enormous public subsidies given to organized religions. Belief in god's law -- as recorded in the Christian scriptures and interpreted by church hierarchy -- was accepted by the Christian-dominated citizenry as the principles for manmade laws relating to individual behavior. As our society has become increasingly diverse, we have found it easier to abandon the quest for just principles in favor of a tolerance for differences that translates into moral and cultural relativism. In so doing, we increase the risk of destroying the fragile balance upon which the Democracy has survived these past two hundred years.

In contradiction to the influence of organized religion, the philosophical basis of our system of law stems from another Lockeian principle -- that society exists out a voluntary association of individuals, who join together in order to enhance their odds for survival and to improve their quality of life. The individualist in us declares as a human right the full control over our person, so long as our actions in no way infringe on the liberty of others. By extension, the individualist argues, this includes the right to determine (without interference from the State) whether we shall or shall not procreate. Religious doctrine may impose a different set of values on the individual who chooses to subordinate his or her actions to the directives of a religious group. In some religions, procreation is viewed as a sacred obligation. A man or woman who abstains from sexual activity (within the confines of marriage or other sanctioned relationship) may be judged harshly, admonished or even ostracized. Practicing other forms of birth control may be viewed in a similar manner. Yet, there is virtually no sympathy among the general citizenry for calls that the the State intervene. Not until a woman actually becomes pregnant are we faced with the moral and legalistic arguments over the definition of human life and the application of law to protect human rights. In this debate, the ongoing development of medical science has complicated matters by making available technologies that intervene in what for most of history has been an exclusive role of biological mother as the nurturer of new life.

We are still very far from universal agreement over what constitutes the bundle of rights individuals possess against each other. There is also some vagueness associated with the division of authority and responsibility between society and the biological parents over the nurturing of a child. Once a child is born the issues center on the criteria by which the adequacy and quality of parental nurturing ought to be judged. Under what conditions does society, acting in the best interests of the child, have the obligation and responsibility to intervene to prevent physical and/or mental abuse. More controversial is the issue of what constitutes a satisfactory minimum level of economic goods provided by the biological parents. And, if this level cannot be met, what is the obligation of society to intervene. Far more difficult still is the issue of whether society has an obligation to intervene on behalf of the unborn and require the biological mother to continue a pregnancy for the full term; and, failing to do so, legally clasiify the voluntary termination of a pregnancy as murder by abortion.

Those who view abortion as both a violation of our moral code and an exercise of criminal license do their cause tremendous harm by attacking the sovereignty claim by women to control their own bodies. Abortion must be sanctioned as a legitimate and appropriate solution to a pregnancy caused by incest or rape, instances where our moral sense of right affirms that a child not come into this world out of such acts of violence. In instances where a woman has voluntarily engaged in sexual activity and become pregnant, the pregnancy may involve a material economic hardship, trigger the loss of employment or otherwise interrupt the mother's life. The approach most likely to convince the biological mother to continue a pregnancy is to provide ongoing psychological and financial support. Financial considerations are frequently paramount in abortion decisions.

Remove those concerns and the number of abortions will drop dramatically. If counseling is to be mandated by society, then provision must be made under law for society to act as guardian of the child, who is, after all, incapable of self care. In the absence of a societal mandate, private organizations interested in preventing abortions ought to develop comprehensive programs that provide for prenatal care, financial assistance, family planning counseling and assumption of direct care when adoption of the child cannot for any reason be accomplished. These approaches acknowledge the arbitrary nature of any attempt to legally establish the point at which human life begins other than when a woman has actually given birth to a child.

In conclusion, those who out of their reverence for life are opposed to abortion must do all they can to eliminate the reasons why women opt to obtain abortions. Some success is already being achieved in working with young people to convince them that becoming sexually active is a mistake before they are mature enough to provide positive nurturing to a child they might create. One of the ironies we face is that requiring young men or boys to take responsibility for any children they father also often requires that society provide job training and financial support to all parties involved (at least in the short run) if a stable family structure has any promise. Given these realities, society must offer a full range of interventions if public policy is to be at all effective. For those young people who, made aware of the risks and responsibilities, still decide to become sexually active they should be given every opportunity and encouragement to use effective forms of birth control. And, finally, when these measures fail and a pregnancy results, a comprehensive support structure must be available to make the decision of continuing the pregnancy one where the positives significantly outweigh the negatives. Declarations of moral righteousness, the destruction of liberty and the application of coercion do nothing but further threaten what remains of the possibilities for a just society.