Frequently Asked Questions about Abortion

Topics:

• THE STATUS OF THE UNBORN
• THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PREGNANCY
• SOCIAL & LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PREGNANCY

Q. Shouldn’t a woman who’s been raped have the right to an abortion?

A. Why is rape wrong?  Because it violates and harms an innocent human being: the woman.  Why is abortion wrong?  Because it kills an innocent human being: the unborn child.  The person who needs to face justice is the rapist; the unborn child, like the woman, is an innocent party.  Furthermore, the trauma and memory of the rape will not be erased by an abortion.  Instead, it adds “insult to injury.”  As Dr. David Reardon points out, “Both the mother and child are helped by preserving life, not by perpetuating violence.”[xii]  The rape victim may give the child up for adoption, but killing him or her for the crime of the father is a serious error.

Imagine this conceptually comparable scenario: A husband beats his wife for years.  Eventually, he goes to jail and she gets custody of their son.  As the boy becomes a young man, his features mature and he begins to look and sound like his father.  When the mother is around her son, she is haunted by memories of the abuse.  May she harm her son because he is a reminder of his father and the injustice he committed?  If not, then why would we permit an unborn child to be harmed because she is a reminder of her father and the injustice he committed?

Here is another comparable scenario: a woman makes love with her husband on Monday and gets raped on Tuesday.  She later discovers that she is pregnant and doesn’t know whether the child is her husband’s or the rapist’s.  She chooses to continue with the pregnancy and has a paternity test done after the child is born.  The test results reveal that the baby’s father is the rapist.  May the baby be killed at this point?  If a rapist’s child cannot be killed after birth, then why before birth?

One thing that people on both sides of the abortion debate can agree on is that a crisis pregnancy is just that: a crisis.  It is not always easy; in fact, the challenges can be intense.  But the issue is not whether difficult life circumstances exist—they do.  The issue is whether one may kill innocent human beings to resolve these challenges.

Q. What about a woman whose life is in danger?

A. This situation is extremely rare.  Since both the woman and her child are human beings, they are equal in value.  When deciding how to ethically intervene in a pregnancy where there is a life-threatening medical problem, one should be guided by this basic moral principle:

One may not commit a wrong action in order to bring about some good effect.  One can only commit good actions, or neutral actions, in order to bring about a good effect.  This concept is most commonly expressed in the form “the ends do not justify the means.”

To give an example, one cannot kill a 5-year-old (a wrong action) in order to obtain his heart for an ill 6-year-old, thus saving the older child’s life (a good effect).

Applying that principle to a pregnancy that, if maintained, could result in the death of the mother and/or child, one may not directly and intentionally kill the innocent child because to do so would be to commit a wrong action.  One may, however, commit good or neutral actions.  For example, removing a cancerous uterus is a good action.  Although it has the effect of saving the mother’s life, it also has the effect of ending the child’s life.  The bad effect, the child’s death, is foreseen but unintended.  If the child could be saved, efforts should be made to do so.  Whether or not it is moral to perform an action that can have both a good and bad effect is governed by “the principle of double effect” outlined by Hayes et al., in their medical ethics book:

Under the principle of the twofold or double effect, the science of ethics lays down certain conditions which must be fulfilled to justify performing an action that has both a good and bad effect.  These are the conditions:

The action to be performed must be morally good in itself or at least morally indifferent or neutral.

The good effect must not come about as a result of the evil effect, but must come directly from the action itself.

The good must be willed, and the evil merely allowed or tolerated.

The good effect must be at least equivalent in importance to the evil effect.  In other words, there must be sufficient reason for permitting the evil effect to occur.

Although the conditions may sound complicated, all of us apply them frequently.  A little boy cuts his hand, and his mother puts an antiseptic on the cut.  This action has two effects: it causes the boy pain and it wards off infection.  Although the mother did not realize it, she actually used the four principles above.  She performed an action that was good in itself, namely, putting antiseptic on the boy’s hand.  The good effect did not come from the pain but rather from the use of the antiseptic.

The mother did not will to giver her child pain, but only desired to help him.  Finally, the good effect of preventing infection far outweighed the evil effect of the antiseptic’s sting.

When the Principle Does Not Apply

Now let us look at a situation which would not be permitted under this principle.  A pregnant woman is suffering from pernicious vomiting, a condition that can easily be solved by aborting the child.  However, such a solution is not morally permissible and violates the double-effect principle in the following ways:

1. The action is not morally good or even neutral; it is evil, it is an attack on innocent human life.

2. The good effect, namely, the health of the mother, follows from the evil effect.  The mother is cured by the death of her child.

3. The evil effect is willed and not merely tolerated.

4. The death of the baby is not equivalent in importance to stopping the mother’s vomiting.

It should be noted that such a condition can be treated with hospitalization, bed rest, the use of IV fluids, and antiemetic medications.  There is no need for abortion, although this is still recommended in some circles.  It is not morally permissible, however, because a good end never justifies an evil means.  We may not do evil in order that good may come from it.

***

Case 2: A married woman discovers that her pregnancy is not developing normally, that it is occurring in the fallopian tube instead of in the uterus.  If the doctor does nothing, the tube will swell further and finally rupture, possibly causing the death of the mother.  The only cure is to remove the tube promptly, which will save the mother’s life and result in the death of the baby.  Is it moral for the doctor to operate?  The answer is yes.

The purpose of the operation is good, to remove a pathological organ which is a threat to the life of the mother.

The good effect of saving the mother’s life does not come from the evil effect of killing the baby.

The surgeon does not will to kill the baby; his death is an unintended side effect of the operation that is merely permitted.

The good effect of saving the mother’s life is at least equivalent to the evil effect of the baby’s death.[xiii]

If abortion became illegal, there would not need to be a clause in the law providing an exception for “when the woman’s life is in danger.”  As has been described above, the measures taken to address such a crisis do not constitute abortion as we know it: directly and intentionally killing an innocent human being.  That is always wrong.

Q. Won’t forcing people to have a child they don’t want lead to increased child abuse?

A. May a parent kill his 2-year-old because he doesn’t want her and because keeping her would lead to increased child abuse?  If abusing an innocent human being is wrong, how is killing an innocent human being right?  Isn’t killing someone the ultimate form of abuse?  Isn’t the most loving thing to care for the child (or, barring that, to place the child into a caring adoptive home) instead of killing her?

Q. I could never give my child up for adoption—first, it would hurt too much, and second, she could be placed in a bad home.  Isn’t abortion the best choice?

A. Giving your child up for adoption would hurt whom too much?  Killing your child through abortion is the best choice for whom?  Adoption hurts you in the short term because you know you’ll bond with your baby at some point in the pregnancy, only to give her up after birth for a family to love, and be loved by, her.  Abortion seems like the best choice because “if I can’t have her, then no one should,” right?  The selfishness in that statement is alarmingly similar to the selfishness in a man who says, “I could never let my girlfriend marry a guy other than me—it would hurt me too much to know she’s receiving someone else’s love and giving him the love that I want.  If I can’t have her, no one can.  Isn’t killing her the best choice?”

Furthermore, the fear that your child could be placed in a bad home is not reason to kill your child.  Although some people have had bad adoption experiences, many people have had wonderful adoption experiences.  Although there are some bad adoptive homes, the solution should not be to kill children but instead to be more cautious about what families are selected.