A Holistic Outlook on Abortion

Hypocrisy of legislators:

The two major contemporary political parties in the United States are both united on repressive policies domestically and abroad, that perpetuate policing, violence, and theft of life.

Domestically, it was the Obama administration that built the cages used under the Trump administration to separate migrant parents from their babies and lock them up.

Abroad, both parties have a track record of enabling US imperialism that has ravaged the world and killed millions in the past decades. In this process, the US has even justified brutal occupation in the name of emancipating woman from ‘repressive rulership.’

The Democrats, who use the abortion issue and slogans of ‘female autonomy’ to energise their base in hopes of electoral success, when in power nurtured terrorist entities such as ISIS, that went onto rape woman and sell them as sex slaves. Can it be said they truly care about ‘women’s rights’?

The Republicans are notorious for their anti-abortion stance, in some respects stemming from deep seated traditional values and their alliances, in hopes of appealing to certain ’conservative’ demographics who believe in these values. However, this is the same party that had killed over half a million Iraqi children during the mid-nineties through sanctions that starved the population. Can it be said they truly care about the rights of an unborn and are therefore ‘pro-life’?

The contradictions that stem from the positions and views taken by those Republicans in power are based on furthering their interests and alliances, as opposed to morality.

Tackling the root cause:

Data from the Guttmacher Institute reported that 1.4% of women of child bearing age sought legal abortion in 2017, in America. It is important to ask a fundamental question that has largely been ignored: why is abortion so rife?

On a foundational level, the Liberal Western secular society that is based on individualism and maximizing pleasure, has made commitment through marriage and motherhood seem as a ‘burden,’ and casual sex as the norm. This value system that has eroded the sacred family unit in society, whereby a quarter of mothers are single parents and 40% of children are born to unwed mothers, is no doubt a primary driver for why abortion is commonplace.

The most common reason cited for seeking an abortion is woman felt their pregnancy would interfere with education or work, and nearly half cited relationship difficulties or wanting to avoid single motherhood, whilst more than a third of women felt their families were complete.

These events unfolding present an opportunity to expose the weakness of Liberalism and the destruction that stems from its ideologue of ‘freedom’ without caveats and a moral compass grounded in a reality beyond the material realm.

Moreover, the system seeking to ban abortions is the same system that leads these woman to feel like they have no choice but to have an abortion, due to the social status quo of injustice engineered by the ruling class, with 73% of woman stating they could not afford a baby at the time. Take for example the average cost of giving birth in the US, that is over ten thousand dollars, to denying affordable healthcare to people with pre-existing conditions.

These events unfolding present an opportunity for us to mobilise against the hostile social policies against the average working class, that has plunged over 40 million Americans below the poverty line.

Overturning Roe V Wade

It is important to examine the recent ban before taking a stance that’s ‘for’ or ‘against’ overturning Roe V Wade, given the law is not inherently based on justice, in particular when dealing with specific cases and exceptions, although one may agree with the general aspect of the law. For example, some states have only placed a limited number of exceptions under “risk to mother,” whilst others have only defined the risk as a “medical emergency” and not when it can be defined in advance. Mental health and rape exceptions are not granted in a number of states, which are all judged on a “case by case” basis under Islamic jurisprudence, for example.

One has to also consider the penalty of imprisonment, which may cause the doctor carrying out the procedure to feel reluctant in exceptional cases where “risk to mother” hasn’t been defined clearly. In Islamic jurisprudence, one has to pay blood money but there are no punitive punishments as such. Such a law is therefore not as expansive, flexible, and just as the Islamic model and should be open to critique.

Moreover, it is imperative to widen socio-political awareness regarding how certain alliances, such as the Christian fundamentalists may seek to weaponise this decision to enact inherently hostile racist policies, since this was a pivotal case in Evangelical white nationalist lobbying that took the case to court, whilst it became a bigger issue under Trump with his Supreme Justice appointments.

Philosophical dimensions against abortion:

Ultimately, every human is endowed with a soul and has the agency to determine their own lives.

However, we have no jurisdiction to determine the destiny of another life, except in particular and exceptional circumstances such as in self defense or in this context, a threat to one’s life or even health. The womb is simply a vehicle for a soul to enter this world – the mother does not own the fetus and ending its life before ensoulment is tantamount to ending the life of a human outside the womb.

The reality is that nobody can play God and the choice one can make lies in deciding to bring a soul into this world in the first place, however choosing to abort a fetus, without legitimate exceptions is denying another the right to life and trespassing on another human being’s right.

Secondary factors such as poverty should not come at the expense of the primary value and human right – that is the preservation of life and it is here that we remind ourselves of the ever-changing nature of life and destinies; we may be poor but opportunities can come our way and we may become better off, and vice versa.

Conclusion:

Irrespective of the unjust nature of a country passing laws and their unjust intentions behind doing so, a law outlawing abortion with the correct exceptions applied, such as taking into consideration medical cases and extreme hardships, should be supported, as that is tantamount to standing against the oppression of killing an unborn human soul in vein.

However, one needs to also call out the unjust aspects of overturning Roe V Wade, such as not distinguishing between “risk to life” and “health of mother” and the vague nature of the exceptions outlined.

The legislative framework in the US is unjust in dealing with the high levels of abortion as it doesn’t look to tackle the root cause for why many woman do abort, despite wanting to ideally keep their child, in addition to the prevailing social culture that encourages free sexual relationships as opposed to real commitment and the formation of a strong family unit.

Whilst laws are not nullified on the basis that the entity passing it is inherently unjust, it is imperative one calls out the hypocrisy of the legislators and acknowledges the root causes of the issues, their solvable dimensions and alternative laws.

Overall, such a law should be supported within the right circumstances. This is whilst one shouldn’t believe or support the intentions of those behind the law, however this doesn’t change the reality of the law being passed. The Republican’s use these laws as moral guises given many in the society are against abortion, hence they walk with these people and take these stances. One should make a distinction between supporting the correct law and its application, and the legislators, calling out the hypocrisy of those behind the idea.