National Observer Home > No. 64 - Autumn 2005 > Editorial Comment
Morality and Convenience Abortions
Because abortion is an emotional issue,
often it is not considered rationally.
In fact, two issues arise. The first
is whether abortion is immoral. The
second is how, if abortion is immoral,
it should be dealt with legislatively.
The morality issue appears to be
straightforward and can best be dealt
with by examples. Thus if it is morally
wrong to kill an infant immediately after
birth, how can it not be morally
wrong to kill an infant immediately before
birth? The immorality of the latter
course is obvious,1 and it should not
be obscured by the simplistic claim
that a woman can do what she likes
with her own body. This claim is fallacious
because it treats the unborn
child as a mere thing, not as a separate
living entity requiring moral consideration,
which it is. Therefore a
woman who has an abortion is both
dealing with her own body and also
killing another human being.
Further, when an abortion is effected,
not immediately before birth,
but at an earlier stage, similar considerations
apply. It is now accepted that
a two month old baby, for example, or
a six month old baby is a separate living entity with its own D.N.A The fact
that there may be doubts whether it
would be able to survive outside its
mother’s womb does not detract from
its separateness or from the immorality
of an act of killing it.
These moral considerations are either
ignored or belittled by the feminist
movement, which is strongly proabortion
or “pro-choice” (that is, in favour
of a choice of killing a living being).
Indeed, in the United States and
Australia feminists even favour partial
birth abortion, where a baby being
born is killed before it is fully obtruded
from the mother’s body (for
once the baby is fully obtruded a killing
becomes legally recognised as
murder).
If questions are raised whether
there is any practical distinction between,
for example, a one-month old
fetus and a six year old baby within the
maternal womb, the proper answer is
simply that questions of the extent, not
of the existence, of immorality arise.
In each case an abortion is morally
wrong, but it would be generally accepted
that the closer the baby is to
birth, the more morally objectionable
an abortion is.
It does not follow from this clear
moral position that equal blame attaches
to all women who seek abortions.
At one extreme, for example,
one may have a young and confused
girl of sixteen or eighteen, who lacks
experience and does not have the benefit
her foetus is immoral, and may cause
immense guilt and psychological damage
for the future, she cannot be regarded
in the same category as a married
woman of forty, for example, who
already has children and does not wish
for any more.
These matters have become especially
relevant in view of the present
debate whether abortions should be
funded by Medicare. The current position
is indeed that abortions are subject
to funding from this source. This
position has been questioned by a
number of parliamentarians, including
Mr. Tony Abbott.
In modern Australian society it appears
to be wrong that abortions
should be covered by Medicare (unless
the abortion is required on medical
grounds such as when the mother’s
health is severely threatened).
“Convenience abortions” (that is,
those not required on medical
grounds) should not be subsidised by
taxpayers.
This is so for two reasons. First, convenience
abortions have no better
claim (and indeed have a worse claim)
to public funding than cosmetic surgery.
At least cosmetic surgery does
not involve the killing of a living being.
Just as it is generally wrong for
taxpayers to be required to subsidise
cosmetic surgery, so it is even more
wrong that they should be able to subsidise
abortions.
The cost of an abortion
is relatively small, and well able
to be borne by the mother or her family if there is in fact to be an abortion.
A second reason why convenience
abortions should not be publicly
funded is that their support by Medicare
gives a wrong message, a message
that this is merely another operation,
not involving special considerations.
But we have seen that abortions are
in fact different. They are morally
wrong because they involve the killing
of a human being.
It is a matter of regret that the comments
of Mr. Tony Abbott, Senator
Ron Boswell and others are being agitated
against by some of the more
feminist Coalition members, such as
Senator Judith Troeth, Ms. Joanna
Gash and Senator Jeannie Ferris.
Senator Troeth is a prominent example
of those who are pre-selected for
the Senate, not by reason of ability or
a prospect of contributing significantly
in the Parliament, but by reason of
lobbying. It is disturbing that Parliamentarians
with insufficient abilities
but with aggressive feminist pre-conceptions,
such as Senator Troeth,
should be able to exert pro-abortionist
pressures in a matter that should
be regarded as straightforward. Unfortunately
the least expectation for
feminists of this kind is to take into
account moral considerations.
A further urgent need in regard to
abortion — as well as the need to remove
Medicare support for convenience
abortions — is the introduction
of a requirement that before an abortion
is performed independent
counseling be provided, so that a more
informed decision can be made which
takes into account the possibility that,
for example, an unmarried woman
will retain and care for her future
child, or have it adopted, as opposed
to killing it. 2 In view of the serious
physical and psychological consequences
of abortions, a requirement
of this kind should have been introduced
long ago.
1. Different considerations apply when an abortion is necessitated by medical factors,
such as where the mother’s life is in danger.
National Observer No. 64 - Autumn 2005
