Abortion Rights Of Women.

Pro - Life Library 46 Information links · Pro - Life Articles

Advocates for gender equality and the recognition of women as not inferior to men, but as their counterparts, often contend that the only difference between a man and a woman lies in the structure of the reproductive organs. Hence, they assert that a woman is merely ‘a man with a womb’. However, this ‘minor’ difference has in practice proven to have far-reaching consequences, which sometimes lead to an election between the two greatest forces in the world; life and death.

One of such consequences is the dilemma faced when a woman has to determine whether or not she wants another life to spring forth from her. In other words, the determination of whether she wants to carry a pregnancy to its full term or she wants to terminate it.

In fact, the issue of abortion has proven to be one area where the opinions of people are strongly divided, with each side of the divide having firm legal, religious, and philosophical bases in support of their views. The probable reason for this is that this is one area where the right of a woman to privacy clashes with the duty of the state to protect the life of its citizens, or in this case ‘potential citizens’.

Having been brought up in a very religious home, my opinion about termination of pregnancy was ‘formed’ long before I could spell the word ‘abortion’ correctly. Yes, ‘formed’ not ‘informed’. But that was not the only idea carved on my budding mind. I was also made to see the ‘unfortunate’ situation of unwanted babies and children born out of wedlock. This was therefore the commandment: thou shall not have an abortion, and thou shall not have unwanted babies! Funny, I never noticed this contradiction until a few years ago, thanks to my Constitutional Law classes. However, I could not have an informed view of the situation until I was privy to some information. These were the things I considered:

The question that has been and still remains a subject of consideration is whether the state should grant a woman the liberty to terminate her pregnancy at will.

There are two basic schools of thought in this regard; the pro-choice (otherwise known as the abortion rights movement), and the pro-life (otherwise referred to as anti-abortion campaigners). So strong is the conviction of both schools of thought that over the years, they have sometimes had to resort to violence to drive home their opinions.

The pro-choice movement contends that the question of whether or not to carry a pregnancy to its full term is an inviolable personal choice to be made by the woman, for it involves not only her body but her personal health, the level of her preparedness to take on responsibilities, as well as her future.

Philosophically, pro-choice activists believe that an embryo is only a potential and not an actual person and its supposed right to life should not be allowed to override that of the pregnant woman who has already gained an existence for herself.

Dr Nelson Soucasaux, a Brazilian gynaecologist and a pro-choice activist justified the right to abortion on the basis that it is related to the self- preservation of the female body against the arduous sacrifices that gestation and child birth impose upon it, and he believes that the frequently debated right of the embryo cannot prevail over the right of the woman who houses it in her body.

The pro-life activists on the other side of the divide advocate for the life of the potential human who has as much a right to live as the mother. They generally argue for the rights of foetuses and for the prohibition or restriction of abortion. They believe that the human foetus is a person and therefore has a right to life guaranteed under national and international human rights instruments, and that an arbitrary deprivation of it should be met with penal consequences.

A judicial pronouncement on this came in the celebrated American case of Roe v Wade, decided on January 22, 1973 where the United States Supreme Court held that a woman, with her doctor, could choose abortion during the earlier months of pregnancy (i.e. the first trimester) without legal restrictions, and with restrictions in later months based on the right to privacy.

The Court, in this case, considered the following rules appropriate:

• In the first trimester, the state (that is any government) could treat abortion only as a medical decision, leaving medical judgement to the woman’s physician.
• In the second trimester (before viability), the state’s interest is seen as legitimate when it is for the purpose of protecting the health of the mother.
• After it is established that the foetus is likely to survive outside and separated from the uterus, the potential human life could be considered as a legitimate state interest and the state could choose to regulate or even proscribe abortion as long as the life and health of the mother was protected.

Although attempting to strike a balance between the two schools of thought, it is easy to see that the decision tilts more towards the side of the abortion rights movement, hence pro-choice activists have chosen the anniversary of the decision to go on rallies advocating for the rights of women.

Presently, countries like the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Netherlands and Russia have legalised abortion in certain cases.

Abortion is criminalised in most African countries (Nigeria for instance) except in cases where the woman’s life or health is at risk. However, South Africa allows abortion on demand under its Choice on Termination of Pregnancy Act.

In the Republic of Ireland, abortion is illegal, except where the woman’s life is threatened by a medical condition or a suicide risk.

Generally, the opinion a person holds about the right of women to have an abortion is often affected by factors like religious convictions, economic realities, prevailing standards of morality, social and educational backgrounds. Hence, pro-life activists are mostly people with strong religious convictions who see abortion as nothing short of murder and an act against God. In the United States, on Christmas Day in 1984 an anti-abortion group bombed three abortion clinics and those convicted called the bombing “a birthday gift for Jesus”.

I believe that both the pro-choice and the pro-life schools of thought represent two extremes which if followed to the letter will breed injustice either to the unborn child or to the pregnant woman. The question I asked myself was this: in countries where abortion is criminalised, to what extent has such criminalisation stopped or even reduced the rate of its occurrence? I found the answer in the ascending number of deaths due to drug abuse in an effort to terminate unwanted pregnancies, the increasing number of in-house abortions conducted by quacks and unqualified ‘doctors’, and news of reproductive system disorders from abortions gone wrong.

The right attitude towards the issue of abortion is neither to criminalise nor totally legalise it. The government should not focus on non-recognition of the right of a pregnant woman to have an abortion, but should rather recognise the right then put mechanisms in place to prevent its abuse .There will in fact be no need for heated arguments on the abortion rights of women if there is proper sex education, healthy and affordable family planning options, and pregnancy preventive measures. The solution therefore is in proper education and orientation, for no case for abortion will arise unless a case for unwanted pregnancy has emerged. Abortion will then not be done in a show of decaying moral standards, but rather in cases of necessity and what we will have is a win-win situation.

Feyisayo Ogunmola