By Wong Fook Meng
SOME 42 million induced abortions are performed worldwide every year, which translates to one in five pregnancies ending in abortion, according to the Guttmacher Institute (see http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_IAW.html).
The rise in the number of abortions is viewed with concern by pro-life groups who see the staggering statistics as nothing less than genocide.
As for pro-choice groups, they continue to push for legal reforms and societal changes to ensure that abortions are safely performed by competent medical professionals.
The raging debate on abortion centres on the seemingly competing rights of women to make choices in regard to their bodies on the one hand and the rights of the unborn child to be brought into this world on the other.
Pro-choice groups emphasise the reproductive rights of women. They argue that the ability of a woman to have control over her own body, including whether to continue a pregnancy, is a critical part of human rights.
After all, the decision of terminating a pregnancy is going to impact a woman the most, and as such she should be given the freedom to make the choice.
Also, legalising abortions will reduce the number of illegal abortions, which are often performed in unsafe and life threatening conditions.
Furthermore, pro-choice groups advance the point that mothers and families will suffer intolerable strain if unwanted pregnancies come to term, especially in certain cases of teen pregnancies, unmarried couples, adultery, rape and incest. If pregnancies cannot be terminated, this will lead to a rise in poverty, hunger, disease and overcrowding.
On the other hand, those who oppose abortion focus on the rights of the unborn child or “growing baby” as a human being with an inherent right to life. The fetus is seen as an independent human being and is not a disposable part of a woman’s body and therefore is not subject to a woman’s absolute control.
While they recognise women’s reproductive rights on whether to have a baby or not, pro-life groups maintain that the time for a woman to exercise her rights, assuming that the pregnancy was not forced, is before conception and not after. Upon conception, the child in its fetal form has independent rights.
Thus, the key issue is how are we to think of the embryo in the mother’s womb? At which point should a fetus be regarded as a human being with legal rights? To what extent should the law interfere with a woman’s right over her own body and to what extent should the law protect the rights of an unborn child?
Pro-choice groups argue that there must be a critical level of complexity in brain or nervous system development before the fetus can be regarded as a conscious personal agency. They decline to attribute personhood to the newly conceived embryo because it does not have capacity for thought, emotion or self awareness.
The fetus has yet to exist independently of the mother and thus cannot be regarded as a separate entity.
Some groups advocate a middle ground approach where abortions in the early part of the pregnancy should be permitted, but late-term abortion should be restricted.
However, those who are pro-life see conception as the decisive moment when human life begins. The fetus assumes personhood from the moment of fusion between the ovum and the sperm. A new individual is created with a distinct genetic identity.
However undeveloped the embryo may be, it is living and the life it possesses is human. As such, termination of pregnancy is also termination of a child’s life.
The innocent unborn is thus entitled to legal protection from deliberate destruction of life by another. The United Nations Declaration of the Rights of the Child 1959 declares that the child needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth.
In Malaysia, the 1989 amendment to the Penal Code widened the criteria for carrying out abortions. Before the amendments came into force, the only ground for abortion was “for the purpose of saving the life of the woman” (section 312).
Now, an abortion may be carried out if the medical practitioner is of the opinion, formed in good faith, that the continuation of the pregnancy would constitute a risk to the life of the pregnant woman or injury to the mental or physical health of the pregnant woman greater than if the pregnancy were terminated. This is a relaxation of the conditions for abortions to be legally performed in Malaysia.
The public debate in Malaysia has not reached the intensity it has in the US, where abortion is a hot button issue in every presidential election. However, it is time that we realise the significance of this debate.
Also, pro-choice and pro-life groups must find common ground and work together in reducing unwanted pregnancies.We must teach our young the sacredness of sexuality and the need to make responsible choices.
The decision to abort is often a wrenching emotional, physical and moral dilemma. As such, we must work hard to reduce the need to make such decisions in the first place.
For the record, I am pro-life simply for the reason that if abortion were permissible and my parents had chosen to abort me, I would not be writing this article.
The writer is a young lawyer. Putik Lada, or pepper buds in Malay, captures the spirit and intention of this column – a platform for young lawyers to articulate their views and aspirations about the law, justice and a civil society. For more information about the young lawyers, visit www.malaysianbar.org.my/nylc.
No comments:
Post a Comment