Skip to main content

My Perspective on Abortion

There are many social problems affecting the nation of Jamaica today. Prominent among these is the problem of abortion which seems to be ever present in the day to day conversation of members of society. Some deem abortion as wrong based on views they have about the sanctity of life ; while others simply believes that abortion should be legalized because a woman should have the right to choose whatever happens to her body.
According to Wikipedia, abortion is defined as the termination of a pregnancy by the removal or expulsion of a fetus/embryo from the uterus, resulting in or caused by its death. An abortion may happen any of three ways. These are Spontaneous Abortion, Clinical Abortion and Elective/Criminal Abortion.
An abortion induced to preserve the health of the gravida (pregnant female) is termed a therapeutic abortion, while an abortion induced for any other reason is termed an elective abortion. Though abortion is often used in connection with inducing the termination of a pregnancy, a miscarriage, which is caused by complications during pregnancy, is also referred to as abortion – spontaneous abortion (
Considering that these different categories of abortion and the factors which may impact upon a person’s decision to have an abortion; the act of abortion cannot be criminalized.

Abortion raises subtle problems for private conscience, public policy and constitutional law. A majority of these problems are in essence philosophical; requiring a degree of clarity about basic concepts that are seldom achieved in legislative debates and letters to media outlets (Feinberg, 1973). Those in the religious sector also have joined this debate and have based their conclusion for the most part, solely on spiritual reasoning. In analyzing all arguments surrounding this controversial topic, one will clearly see that there are just two things being argued. These being: the moral justifiability of abortion and the legal and constitutional issues.
As stated earlier, the act of having an abortion can never be considered wrong without exploring the three main categories given (Spontaneous, clinical and elective). Having understood these categories, one will clearly see that it is fatuous to absolutely criminalise the act of abortion. If criminalization should even be considered it should only be done under specified circumstances.
As was already explained in the introduction of this discourse, clinical abortion refers to the termination of pregnancy based on the advice of a doctor, due to the mother being at risk. One of the most compelling arguments of those who espouse a pro-life belief is that we must respect the sanctity of life. However, what this view does not acknowledge is the dilemma one faces in deciding which life is more valuable. Certainly, if the mother’s life is at risk, then who makes the call in deciding which life is more sacred. Does the state have that right? Does the church, the moral conscience of the society, have that right? Or, should that decision be left up to the person who has her life and the life she carries on the inside of her at stake? What if there are other children in the picture here? Would that be justice?
Furthermore, one of the most fundamental moral intuitions is that except in the most extreme circumstances, it is wrong to take a life; such as the mother’s life being at risk. However, this intuition is not particularly precise because the question is asked, when does life begin (Feinberg, 1973)? There are those who, with good reasons, claim that a fetus is a human being and in exception of extreme circumstance, taking its life is wrong. Based on this position destroying a fetus is as wrong as taking another person’s life. It is tantamount to murder. However, there are others, with an equally good reason, who claim that a fetus is not a human being and that, therefore its destruction is permissible in cases in which it would be wrong to take another human life (Feinberg, 1973). Not even scientists can agree on the fundamental question of when life begins. Even biblical scholars need to concede that the Bible is silent on the issue as well. Until a consensus is arrived at, the rest of the society cannot be held at ransom by the state and demonized by the church for having had an abortion.
Moreover, many argue against abortion based on the theory of natural law which speaks to reproduction. This argument acknowledges reproduction as an inherent component of the natural human condition, which are all a part of the natural human life span. Since this is the case, abortion is counter to this design. A response to this argument can be seen in the view of the principle of double effect. If a pregnant woman’s life is at risk due to her pregnancy, should she seek to bring the child to full term? This argument also fails to acknowledge that natural law is not always so clear cut in an imperfect world of anomalies. How would the natural law of reproduction explain barrenness? Or furthermore, how will it speak to those who do become pregnant but the baby is growing in the fallopian tube (ectopic pregnancies)? According to natural law, the woman should become pregnant and the baby should grow in the uterus, not the fallopian tubes. How do we treat those anomalies? Do we employ the generalized; one size fits all notion of the natural law justification for the criminalization of abortion?
Finally, it is our own biased or uninformed view of what abortion is, that may prompt us to say absolutely that abortion is wrong and must be criminalized. Francis A. Schaeffer and C. Everett Koop (1979; 89) , in their book, ‘Whatever Happened to the Human Race’, implicitly defined abortion this way:
Will a society which has assumed the right to kill infants in the womb – because they are unwanted, imperfect and inconvenient – have difficulty in assuming the right to kill other human beings, especially older adults who are judged unwanted, deemed imperfect physically or mentally, or considered a possible social nuisance… The next candidates for arbitrary reclassification as nonpersons are the elderly.

Both gentlemen have assumed, as many persons do, that abortion is, necessarily, the act of killing infants in the womb because they are unwanted and imperfect and inconvenient. They have not made argument based on what abortion is, essentially. They have brought into discussion the intents for which some might elect to have an abortion. This assumption ignores those who, for therapeutic reasons, have abortions; not even contemplating the unborn fetus to be inconvenient or unwanted. Certainly their concerns must be noted but it is not sufficient in justifying the criminalization of those who must elect to have one for therapeutic reasons.

Perhaps the debate on the “rightness” or “wrongness” may never end, as persons are guided by different value systems and world views. However, we must always consider what the term abortion means and the various categories of abortion so that we can make informed decisions. Further to, we must understand there are many ethical principles that collide on this issue, creating dilemmas that are not too easily resolved. To criminalise abortion will be to blatantly ignore a group of women whose life may be at risk if the law forces them to keep a pregnancy that creates medical complications and still it indicts a group of women who have no control over the phenomenon. In making a policy to control abortion, these factors must be considered and until that is done then abortion cannot be criminalized.


  1. Isn't it ironic that most people who chastise women who have had abortion(s) would normally have no problem neutering their pets. Natural law promotes procreation - not only for human beings, but for the environment as well. So if (according to society) I have complete authority over my pet to decide on whether it should reproduce or not - then why can't I exercise that same authority with my body, even after conception?

    Is it murder to cut off my finger? Is it ok to carry a child into this world knowing that I cannot maintain him/ her? Which is worst? - removing growing cells or the social burden of unhappy delinquents? Why is it ok to remove a tumor but not an embryo? - neither can survive outside the body.

    I agree - our society is not perfect - and I do not believe that any one component of nature has dominion over another - we are not even qualified to judge another. Instead, our authority should apply only to our own individual being. It is my duty to seek my best interest provided that I do not impose on the well being of another independant human being. I do not consider an embryo/ fetus to be an independant being and that opinion would remain unless miraculously convinced otherwise.


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Comfort is OVERRATED & Will Stunt Your GROWTH!!!

I have been thinking a lot lately about success and growth. I think many of us aspire to success and there are different versions of how that may manifest in our lives. For some, success shows up in the accumulation of wealth, degrees, notoriety or accomplishing simple life goals. Personally, I believe that each of us deposited into this realm of existence came with a specific assignment to benefit the earth and that success will be measured by how well I have lived out my specific assignment.

(My Photo: Community Workshop facilitation)

Whatever success looks like to you, you will have to agree that success does not happen by osmosis or luck. Success begins with a paradigm shift. I call it the cultivation of the growth mindset. One ways of thinking that we have to cultivate in this growth mindset towards success is that we must become comfortable with being uncomfortable. We underestimate and undervalue the profitability of challenge, opposition and discomfort in developing intellectu…

The Wicked Woman We Love to Hate!

Choose a Caribbean island - any one. There's a mother who's just beat her child with the first thing that her hands fall on. The Caribbean is inundated with narratives of mothers who dare not spare the rod and spoil the child - mothers who dig up ants nest and put their child to kneel in it, on a grater with their hands tied behind their back; mothers who use a hot iron to burn the hand of their thieving child; mothers who go into schools to box up the disrespectful child for answering back teacher and bringing shame to her name.
These are the things that Caribbean mothers do. They do this, not necessarily because they are wicked, but in the name of discipline.

We are a people who have learned violence. It's become part of our social DNA. Our parents learned that violence was how transgressors are taught to do better and behave better. They learned such violence from their parents, and their parents from theirs and their parents from the plantation. The whip is what we le…


Social Media, and in particular twitter, has become a space for spewing caustic and vitriolic effluent at people with whom we disagree. I am sometimes amazed at how people feel so empowered and emboldened sitting behind a screen to descend into the bowels of utter nastiness to express dissent to something that someone else posted. It is worse now that we have 280 characters instead of 140. It means that the nastiness is times two. But social media can be and has been used as a source of good. I have been the beneficiary of deep friendships and formed a formidable network of people who have supported and pushed me along in my professional and personal life.Yet, we do not hear many stories about the power and reach of social media. In this post, I want to speak about a quiet Superhero that I encountered on social media.

I had been working in three vulnerable communities in the last couple of years on a urban disaster risk reduction project being implemented by Habitat for Humanity Jamai…