Here'sthe scene:
A man of typical college years impregnates a woman the same age. He wants her to have an abortion, his being of sound mind. She, having some imposing morality, says no and brings the child to term. The guy is now responsible, if not legally, then at least in the minds of too many, for the well-being of a child he never wished to bring into this world. My friends, this is the state of moral and judicial bankruptcy to which our nation has plunged.
Let's get some things straight. First, the man rejected the "foetus in ventre sa mere" (chic phrase for a fetus in the womb), and if a woman were to make the same choice, she would be able to have the abortion.
Why is the man not given this same right in the symbolic gesture of making him in no way responsible for a child that he would have aborted? How can we defend such a double standard? Men ought not be treated as second class citizens!
If a woman can be an abortee, then so too a man! Furthermore, men should not be denied the stigma of excommunication by the Church in such cases, despite his not actually having been successful in the abortion. Again, I argue, symbolically, we ought to consider men and women as having equal rights.
So, that having been said, what of abortion in general? Well, you should know that there are people like me out there. Here is my spiel: The volitional abortion of any non-viable fetus is justified under any circumstances. If there exists the possibility that a fetus can survive outside of the womb, then it can be given this chance.
The fetus must, however, be able to survive outside the womb absent any medical assistance. If the fetus dies, then it was non-viable and thus aborted justly. If it survives, then the fetus becomes a child, and the extermination of this child would then be murder.
Immediately, one might question the definition of "medical assistance," as the standard of viability rests upon a fetus's ability to survive outside the womb "absent any medical assistance." Is one to exclude blankets, shelter, water and other essentials? Assuredly, absent such necessities, any child would die. One must realize, therefore, that these are universal necessities for all viable children. Since all viable children require certain necessities, such things are not considered "medical assistance."
Using the above test for viability, the child may, of course, survive, but be irrevocably damaged due to its forced birth. This unfortunate situation should not cause the mother a single compunction. If the damage done to the child is merely physical, i.e., the child remains able to develop a healthy brain, then the child may be allowed to live.
Otherwise, the child should probably be killed immediately. The mother surrenders the right to end the child's life if and only if the child is viable and declared healthy, i.e., absent any serious physical or mental injury, by a doctor.
Brazen and insensitive as this paradigm may seem, the model is not devoid of caring. Rather, individuality is valued, hence the rich depth of a woman's freedoms.
But is this "brave new world" not dehumanized by such killings? No, conversely, the world is humanized. By recognizing the true value of human life, society would be promoting those things essential to human existence.
The granting of sacred human rights to a mere bundle of cells truly denigrates the uniqueness of humanity. By recognizing the morality of abortion, society embraces humanity as unique, special and, consequently, valuable.
Such a brave society would not give the rights of a full grown adult to a mere bundle of cells. How easy and cowardly it would be to simply and simplistically see no difference between the two!
If one accepts viability as a standard, however, one must still assume much about human rights. The most reasonable assumption posits that the inalienable rights endowed to humans by nature are given fully only to initially viable, healthy human beings. These rights would be immutable, coming into existence initially and then being inalienable. An adult who becomes incapable of living absent certain medical assistance, then, does not lose his or her human rights. A man, for example, who enters a coma after a horrific car accident does not loose his human rights. This assumption, therefore, allows for an acceptable, objective standard. A more subjective endowment of human rights upon mere potential opens the flood gates to quandaries, especially given the growing potential of genetic and developmental engineering.
