The question was: “Will you allow abortion?” One presidential candidate’s reply was to reject abortion but carved out an exception: for pregnancies arising from rape or incest.
Clearly, this is a difficult matter and the emotional and physical violence suffered by the woman victim is incalculable. Nevertheless, the problem with that response is that the fundamental reason for prohibiting abortion is because the fetus is a human being. Which it is.
Rape or incest will not change the fact that to abort the fetus is to murder an innocent baby. To allow any abortion — except to directly save the life of the mother — simply results in an immoral inconsistency. A law mandating government to assist raped pregnant women, providing health and psychological care, and then providing means for the baby to be adopted by the State is a far better option than simply leaving the raped mother alone on her own to have an abortion.
Princeton’s Robert George’s remarks before the American Political Science Association Convention is relevant here: “A human being is conceived when a human sperm containing 23 chromosomes fuses with a human egg also containing 23 chromosomes (albeit of a different kind) producing a single-cell human zygote containing, in the normal case, 46 chromosomes that are mixed differently from the 46 chromosomes as found in the mother or father. Unlike the gametes (that is, the sperm and egg), the zygote is genetically unique and distinct from its parents. Biologically, it is a separate organism.” It is science, not religion, that brought us to that conclusion.
Yes, it is a woman’s body, and, yes, it may be her choice, but the fetus also has a body and should be entitled to the same right to life as the woman.
Catholics should thus have no qualms employing “my body my choice” reasoning against vaccines while being assured of its invalidity vis-a-vis abortion:
“There’s a second human involved, and it is the protection of that more vulnerable human that conservatives feel justifies government involvement, not some secret fetish for fascist authoritarianism. Obviously, in the case of government compelling a person to get a vaccine, the consequences of that decision affect the life of the one making the decision, not a third party. That’s the distinction.” (“Why the ‘bodily autonomy’ argument works against vaccine mandates but not for abortion,” Not the Bee, Jan. 21, 2022)
There’s also the tremendous psychological damage to women subjected to abortion: “…both sides agree that (a) abortion is consistently associated with elevated rates of mental illness compared to women without a history of abortion; (b) the abortion experience directly contributes to mental health problems for at least some women; (c) there are risk factors, such as pre-existing mental illness, that identify women at greatest risk of mental health problems after an abortion…*” (“The abortion and mental health controversy: A comprehensive literature review of common ground agreements, disagreements, actionable recommendations, and research opportunities,” David C Reardon, 2018).
ROE VS WADE
Roe vs. Wade is emblematic of the dangers of the “living constitution” theory, which many of the so-called prestigious and progressive law schools in the Philippines remain enamored with. Even liberal academic and Stanford Law Dean John Hart Ely famously labeled Roe as completely untethered to the text, structure, and understanding of the US Constitution.
“Roe invented a constitutional entitlement to elective abortions effectively at all stages. It forbade virtually all abortion regulations in the first trimester and allowed only those serving the mother’s health — not protecting fetal life — in the second. While it purported to permit prohibitions in the third trimester, it required exceptions for ‘health,’ which a companion case (Doe v. Bolton) defined so broadly as to include ‘emotional, psychological, [and] familial health’ considerations. This guaranteed a virtually unlimited right to abortion up to birth.” (“Roe Will Go,” Robert P. George, October 2021)
Hence, the case of Dobbs vs. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, a case awaiting decision by the US Supreme Court. The issue is the constitutionality of a 2018 Mississippi state law banning abortions after the 15th week of pregnancy. Oral arguments were held last December. Legal experts, observing the oral arguments, mostly opine that the conservative majority is likely to uphold the Mississippi law.
The Dobbs case undoubtedly, “is a long-awaited opportunity for the Court to get right with the Constitution. There are now six justices appointed by Republican presidents who are known or strongly believed to think that Roe and Casey were terrible constitutional blunders resulting in an appalling toll of human lives. There has been no better moment in the last half century than the present one for the righting of an injustice — an unconstitutional injustice.” (“Roe Undermines the Supreme Court’s Legitimacy,” Matthew Franck and Robert P. George, Nov. 11, 2021).
It is ironic that precisely at this moment when the catastrophic wrong that is Roe vs. Wade is at the brink of being corrected, the Philippines is now considering committing the same atrocious and deadly mistake.
* “…and (d) it is impossible to conduct research in this field in a manner that can definitively identify the extent to which any mental illnesses following abortion can be reliably attributed to abortion in and of itself.”
Jemy Gatdula is a senior fellow of the Philippine Council for Foreign Relations and a Philippine Judicial Academy law lecturer for constitutional philosophy and jurisprudence
https://www.facebook.com/jigatdula/
Twitter@jemygatdula
