All women should have a right to abort if their pregnancies are the product of rape or put their lives at risk, or if their unborn babies suffer severe deformities. This is obvious to me.
The moral reasons that support this point of view, which I intend to explore below, are much more sound than those used against it. In May of 2006, Colombia’s Constitutional Court issued a landmark decision that effectively legalized abortion in these three specific cases, thus advancing the often ignored rights of Colombian women. No longer would raped girls be forced to suffer the added humiliation of raising the children of their attackers, or of being pushed into dodgy dangerous backrooms so that they could undergo an intervention that the state called a crime. No longer would women have to choose between saving their own lives or committing a criminal offense that could make them serve up to three years in jail. No longer would mothers be obligated to lead lives of anxiety and anguish by seeing their own children suffer every minute as a consequence of genetic malformation.
The strong political forces of Colombia’s religious right have aligned themselves in order to reverse and leave in limbo the basic abortion rights Colombian women enjoy today. The State Council and Alejandro Ordóñez, the Inspector General have launched a juridical war against the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court. On the one hand, the State Council literally put the Court´s decision on hold, because it believed that the authority to regulate the decision fell on the legislative branch (through a statute), and not on the executive (who regulated the norm using a decree). This shameless excuse, based on dubious legalisms, means that no hospital in Colombia can practice otherwise legal abortions until there is clarification on this issue. All those girls and women who are in desperate need of an abortion so that they can save their lives, must now wait.
The Inspector General´s attack on abortion was less vicious, although it has other equally worrying consequences. Earlier this month, the Constitutional Court issued another decision which ordered that all schools include classes on Colombia’s limited right to abortion as part of their sexual education curriculum. Unsurprisingly, the decision angered religious conservatives, such as the Inspector General, who released a statement without delay calling for the annulment of the Court’s decision. Again, as it happened with the State Council’s objections, the Inspector General claimed that Congress, and not the Court, was the right place to make such decisions.
Note the State Council and the Inspector General have not attacked the Court’s decisions on religious, moral, ethical, or fundamental rights grounds. They are simply questioning the validity of the juridical process through which those decisions were taken or regulated. These are criticisms of form that have had the impact of affecting the substance of the Court’s landmark decisions, de facto rendering them invalid. Yet, it is difficult to believe that the Inspector General’s profoundly Catholic convictions are not interfering with the way in which he has handled the issue. There is nothing wrong at all with being deeply religious, but I have a problem when unelected public officials start bringing their faith-based agendas into the secular public arena. I am convinced that the this is exactly what the Inspector General has done in this case.
In understand that a majority of Colombians may well be inflexible anti-abortionists, who believe that a woman never has a right to end her pregnancy even under the most extreme of circumstances. After all, Colombia still is a parochial, largely conservative society: the first legal abortion in Colombia, performed on an 11 year-old who had been raped by her stepfather, did not fail to outrage many people. It is very likely that if Colombians were to decide this issue by referendum, the pro-choice side would lose miserably.
But even if the majority is opposed to abortion, that does not change the fact that the majority is wrong. MIT philosopher Judith Jarvis Thomson’s classic 1971 article “A Defense of Abortion” explains the issue with great lucidity and puts anti-abortionists against the wall. Professor Thomson maintains that pregnancy due to rape is akin to someone kidnapping you and surgically attaching you to someone else’s ill body (a famous violinist, in her analogy). For nine months, that ill person will be fully dependent on your metabolism for his own survival, and if you choose to detach yourself from him, he would most certainly die. However, you were put in that situation by force and against your will (as it occurs with rape), so at least you ought to have the choice of unplugging yourself. If you decide to lend your body for the person’s survival, you would be doing “a great kindness”, but detaching yourself and moving on with your life is certainly within your rights.
Professor Thomson’s defense of abortion in cases of risk to the woman’s life is also straightforward and powerful. It is consensus that people have a right to kill others in self defense. Now imagine that you are locked in your house with an inflatable baby that is always growing bigger and bigger. Eventually, the baby will grow so big that he will crush you against the walls. As you own the house and you are being put in imminent fatal danger, you have the right to kill him in order to survive. Professor Thomson writes: “[I]t cannot be seriously be thought to be murder if the mother performs an abortion on herself to save her life. It cannot seriously be said that she must refrain …However innocent the child may be, you do not have to wait passively while it crushes you to death.” You may choose, out of love for the baby, to let him crush you, but at least you ought to have a choice.
The Colombian government has an obligation to inform the population about these important, state-protected rights, just like they are told about a right to life, to vote, to education, to equality before the law, etc. There cannot be any distinctions in this matter between “good” rights and “bad” rights –Colombians ought to be equally informed about them all.
It is difficult to know where the actions of the State Council and the Inspector General will lead in the long run. They could be the beginning of the end for legalized abortion in Colombia. If Congress winds up legislating on the details of the Court’s decision, they will likely asphyxiate abortion with a pile of regulations. For the sake of Colombia’s women, I hope this does not occur.
theOblate
said:
 |
... As I Catholic I have always been perplexed by this. Putting it simply...murder is murder. If you believe and the Church teaches that life begins at conception then the answer seems clear. However, I also feel that the argument that Cano puts forth is spot on correct. It has never been ruled or said that abortion is wrong...the Church has never has never issued an encyclical forbidding abortion so they seem to be wanting it both ways. For me, it is the woman’s decision to decide what is best for her. I don’t like the idea of getting an abortion just because you have decided you do not want a child, but then again why bring a child into a home where it is not wanted. It must always be remembered that the Catholic church is a body that is ruled by men and many of the laws of the Church are centuries old and have never been brought to the current debate. I have always had a problem with a bunch of old men telling me what I can and cannot do. The Church has always subjugated woman because they have been afraid to include them in the leadership of the Church. Every argument they made is counter productive and useless. |
gringomedeliin
said:
|
... The Inspector General is wrong, if the executive branch or Congrss fail to act, the Courts then can set rules,standards when it comes to protecting a persons right. thus the court ruled legally in this case, the Inspector General is clearly using his personal views to interfere with the rights of women in Colombia, they should inturn file suit against him both on a persoanl and professional level, demanding he step down as he has failed to represent all the people. |
Albeiror24
said:
 |
... However, those who defend abortion and criticize the Church´s position, accusing it of ´morality´ and ´Middle Age positions´, never have read the documents of the Catholic Church on the issue and make a real deep analysis, just taking bias from ´Liberal´ and ´Agnostic´ points of view. Please read this document and write the article again in order to be more neutral: Declaration on Procured Abortion: Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, November 18, 1974 (http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_df75ab.htm): ´One cannot but be astonished to see a simultaneous increase of unqualified protests against the death penalty and every form of war and the vindication of the liberalization of abortion, either in its entirety or in ever broader indications. The Church is too conscious of the fact that it belongs to her vocation to defend man against everything that could disintegrate or lessen his dignity to remain silent on such a topic.´ |
theOblate
said:
|
... adriann, would you open up more space for my reply. I want to keep a Colombian perspective and also provide an intelligent response. thanks |
Adriaan
said:
 |
... Hi the Oblate, I don't want to open up more space or people will write comments even longer than the articles are :-) You can cheat though and simply cut your comment in half.  |
the Oblate
said:
|
... Well, I read the article from the New Advent site and I am more convinced than I was before about abortion and the Catholic Church. But, let's keep it simple because the article itself is nothing more than a well written collegiate essay that is long on being profound and short on providing proof. The Catholic Church. It is an organization invented and maintained by men. The rules of the Church are focused solely on the needs of man vs. women. The Church has always put itself above the laws of man and state this to the effect in the article when it says, " the tradition of the Church has always held that human life must be protected and favored from the beginning, just as at the various stages of its development." The emphasis that I want to show is the word tradition. Later on the article states that the church “has not changed and is unchangeable.” Why is this? It’s because they are afraid to be accountable for the crap they have spewed to its believers for centuries. I am a Catholic and once was part of a Benedictine Monastery and we always questioned this unchangeable nature. To be an effective organization you must continually change to refuse not to prostitutes yourself to your own unprovable beliefs. The church only refers to its members as ‘men’ and they leave woman as an afterthought. |
the Oblate
said:
|
... Contiued. The problem the Church has and maintains is that it makes laws and disregards opposing viewpoints. The Church is in trouble throughout the world and it is through mediocre essays like this that the Church’s demise will continue until its own obscurity. The cause of abortion demands that the Church examin the problem and provide solutions or alternatives other than it is worng and the church is unchangeable so that is all there is to talk about. That is not what Catholic’s want to hear. Abortion. In 1856 it was defined as, "The expulsion of the fotus before the seventh month of utero-gestation, or before it is viable." Bouviers Law Dictionary, 1856. And if you go back in time you will the word used less and less. Abortion is a latin word meaning untimely birth. Remember…latin. The bible was not written in latin and the word abortion is not found anywhere in the bible. There are discussions on life and the taking of life and there are some phrases that can be viewed as a casual definition against abortion. |
the Oblate
said:
|
... Last comment: Every woman should have the legal right to an abortion no matter what her reason period. It is amazing that countries and several religions accept the death sentence without discussion but, then they condemn abortion. Then we can argue how many times the Catholic Church has been guilty of racism, sexism, anti-gay rights and on and on but when the double standard is put forth they cry foul and that is unfair. For me as a man…I feel that it is a woman’s right to terminate a birth in cases of rape, incest, incurable disease, etc. I do not agree that a woman can just go out and abort a fetus because they have decided that they do not want the child. Women should be free to follow their consciences on matters such as terminating a pregnancy as long as they know what they are doing and what is at stake. I just had a sister in law have a baby that was terribly deformed. The baby was assured of only one thing; it would live a very painful life and dies a horrible death early in life. The sister in law knew about this three months into her pregnancy and continued with the pregnancy. After three months the child died a horrible death. And the Catholic Church says this is the way it should be? The Church needs to be less chauvinistic and more tolerant of woman and pregnancy and less concerned with controlling women. One thing is certain to me…if the Pope were a female instead of a male this discussion would be much different. |
Albeiror24
said:
|
... It is possible that once the Pope will be a woman (in such case will be the Holy Mom), but it is certain that the Church will not accept abortion, not because religion, but because it is its mission to stay at the side of the most defenseless. You can defend the rights of the women as you want. Even if women are object of several abuses around the world, they have more capacity to defend themselves. But fetus is human life. Everybody defend the rights of the women (and it is okay), everybody defend the rights of animals (and it is okay), too many defend the right to kill a defenseless human creature. Please do not say you were a Catholic month. Be honest. It is not a question of what is the Church. The discussion is of what is the meaning of human life. The discussion goes millennium before the Christians were born. Other religions and philosophical systems and even natural peoples are completely agree that abortion is an arbitrary attempt against human life. |
the Oblate
said:
|
... ..."But fetus is human life." and this was said by whom and when? What circumstances? There was a time in the Catholic Church and it is ever so briefly mentioned in your article that the soul does not enter the human body for two weeks after death. Why is that? Why is it that the principal decision or policy makers are men...in fact old men? Are you aware of the difficulty that was had in selecting which books would be in the bible? Why just those books? Why not the Gospels of Mary and Mary Magdalene? There were also other great learned people whose news about Jesus would have leant the same continuity to the New Testament as the current contributors. Why is that? One word...Control! And the Church does this with women to this day. They have to control women and it is because of this lack of fortuitivness that the Church is in demise. |
the Oblate
said:
|
... ...continued, The Catholic Church has failed its members because it has an all or nothing attitude. For the Church to stay alive they must provide options and alternatives to the most difficult of subjects like abortion. Where would the Church be today if they had been more reasonable on the subject of abortion and provided a means for people to make a true spiritual and natural choice? People would flock to the Church in droves. When the need for discussion, decisions and, negotiation was most needed; these old men turned their backs on the true strength of the Church. It is doubtful that any cleric ever sought the advice of a woman of knowledge or experience on the subject of abortion. To do so would force these religious zealots to compromise…perish the thought. |
Albeiror24
said:
|
... Dear Oblate, I am not interested in defense the Holy Catholic Church. It is a big organization with two thousand years and it can defend itself very well. Do not turn the discussion to what is or what is not the Church. I have my own idea about it and I respect the ideas of others about it. But I will defend the idea of defenseless of the fetus as human, out of being a Catholic, a Protestant, a Buddhist, a Muslim or an Agnostic. |
the Oblate
said:
|
... But it is the Catholic Church that made the rule that has ruined and or damaged the lives of so many people. It has to be part of the debate. And if you say that the fetus is defenseless then how do you expalin the condition of the 12 year old girl who was raped or the 9 year old girl who was raped by her father. Are they not alos defenseless? They are and sjuts as defenseless as the fetus. This is a reson why the abortion debate is so difficult and probably impossible to reach agreement on. |
Albeiror24
said:
|
... Two mistakes: 1. No to abortion is not a Catholic invention; it is a natural conclusion of ethics. 2. Accusing the Church of ´ruining or damaging the lives of many people´ is an exaggeration difficult to prove (better ask Fernando Vallejo with his own theory). You put to me a defenseless 12 years old raped by her father: your solution is to abort (read kill, eliminate or destroy the fetus). Mathematical conclusion: Two defenseless creatures, the girl and the fetus. Ethically (not Catholic only) human life must be defended. Conclusion: the guilty is the father of the girl, not the fetus. According your logic, kill better the father. Now well, in this discussion, you must prove to me that the fetus must pay the guilt of the violent act in order to accept its destruction. Your accusations on the Church are your personal assumption. Buddhist, Muslims, Hindu, natural religions and many philosophical systems do not accept abortion too. As I presume you live in a Catholic culture, then you want to justify abortion over the disqualification of the Church because you assume anti-abortion is a Catholic position by itself. However, you are discussing with someone who does not accept abortion not because Catholic, but because ethical and humanistic. In such order, you should attack ethics and humanism better in order to convince me that abortion is good itself by nature, something that it is difficult to accept by me. |
theOblate
said:
|
... I have no more to say. I have made my point and I feel very comfortable about it. Putting it simply...there are justifiable reasons that Abortion is acceptable and millions f people believe as I do. However, people like you, whose beliefs do not accept alternatives will always continue to argue for your point because you have no other way will always believe the contrary. Inside you know there is no solution and for you there will never be compromise. "I never said that abortion is good itself by nature..." Those are your words so don't attribute your words to mine. And you have no authority to comment on what Buddhists, Hindu’s or Muslims say because you have no idea other than what someone or some article has told you. This is not about them but it is about the inability of the Catholic church to tend to its flock…something they do not do a very good job of in my opinion and in my studies and in my experiences. This is a typical defense for the weak and uninformed...this and quoting from sources that only present your thoughts and beliefs. You can only look in one direction. I feel so sorry for you. Adriaan, thank you for allowing this debate. |
Albeiror24
said:
|
... Thanks, but some wrong assumptions of you: I have lived with Muslims and Jews four years in Israel and I live among Buddhist in Cambodia and Thailand. I am not convinced that abortion is accepted by 'million of peoples', I am a journalist, I believe in statistics (get it for me, statistics are my food). I never have read that 'million of peoples believe in abortion', that is a modern and materialistic position. Other inexact conclusion: you do not know about my believes and points of view. I only said that I do not accept abortion due to humanism and ethics. You cannot make a drawing of me at all. Please, do not feel sorry for me. I respect your opinions very well and I believe in the right to be in disagrement. You want to attack the right of institutions like the Church (and many others) to defend the rights of the fetus. Come down with the discussion to facts and dialogue, not to personal assumptions. Greetings from Hong Kong. |
Old school
said:
|
... I do tend to understand the abortion by rape principal but the flat reality is that there are secret organizations working to implement the humanist manifesto and reduce human society to a big orgy of uncommited sex and sodomy. In the black community in America it is already a proven fact that these pro abortion+ anti marriage societies are a failure. Look at the prison rate for black men, alcoholism, and the dozens of other social ills of single parent homes. The choice should be made by a RESPONSIBLE woman to restrain and not get pregnant before engaging in the sacred institution of physical intamacy, which many are trying to reduce to a hobby or sport. Be responsible, noble, and simply make the choice before you lay down. Fathers should also have full rights over his conceived child also as it would not exist without his sperm. |
